<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/2/20 5:13 pm, European Water
Project wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAK=tSVfAfMZNtu2HsCnutku20eD_vJ43CiRMxSowP76F0Oratg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">I see good arguments on both sides ....
<div><br>
</div>
<div>but I tend to agree with Joseph and Marc about the need to
put substance over form. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Maybe the proposal just passes based on objective
measurements (vote ratio), but that if enough people post
facto see enough flaws that it can be temporarily suspended.
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAK=tSVfAfMZNtu2HsCnutku20eD_vJ43CiRMxSowP76F0Oratg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>To help motivate authors, maybe the burden for getting an
alternative tag implemented can be shifted to the naysayers.
ie if they don't develop a new tag, the previous proposal goes
through ... <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>The above idea I like!<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAK=tSVfAfMZNtu2HsCnutku20eD_vJ43CiRMxSowP76F0Oratg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best regards,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Stuart </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 01:23,
marc marc <<a href="mailto:marc_marc_irc@hotmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">marc_marc_irc@hotmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">the
proposals (I'm talking generally, not just about this one)
have<br>
often 2 flaws:<br>
- often too big (not this one)<br>
- often rfc too short, even active people still have remarks
to make<br>
that the vote is already open, so they are stuck to sink the
proposal<br>
(with the risk that its author gets demotivated) or to accept
it hoping<br>
that the defects will be corrected later (which is always much
more<br>
difficult in the osm world).<br>
with your opinion, I would have voted against it without
hesitation.<br>
because it's the best way to improve what you think should be
improved.<br>
i have in mind the proposal diaper<>changing table:
totally ok for the<br>
idea, i voted against the first version because of the
negative elements<br>
it contained.<br>
<br>
Le 06.02.20 à 01:10, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :<br>
> Ok, so we should consider it approved in this case.<br>
> <br>
> (For context, both Mateusz Konieczny and myself have
abstained, along<br>
> with 3 others, but had comments expressing concern about
using<br>
> "give_box" instead of "free_box" or something easier to
understand.)<br>
> <br>
> But hypothetically, what if there were even more comments
expressing<br>
> reservations. This time it was over 25%, but what if it
was 40% or<br>
> even 50%?<br>
> <br>
> Since the idea of this process is to reach consensus
about a tag,<br>
> shouldn't critical comments be addressed by those voting
"yes"?<br>
> <br>
> One thing that might help would be to recommend a comment
along with<br>
> positive votes. Right now you can vote to approve without
saying<br>
> anything about the objections voiced, and the template
suggest this is<br>
> the usual way to do it.<br>
> <br>
> This seems to put too much weight on the percentage of
approved vs<br>
> disapproved rather than the actual reasons for the votes.<br>
> <br>
> - Joseph Eisenberg<br>
> <br>
> On 2/6/20, Andrew Davidson <<a
href="mailto:theswavu@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">theswavu@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> On 6/2/20 4:02 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
wrote:<br>
>>> I see no good reason to count explicit "abstain
but have comments"<br>
>>> exactly like "vote against".<br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>> +1<br>
>><br>
>> To abstain from voting is to not cast a vote. So
there were 14 votes<br>
>> with just under 93% approving.<br>
>><br>
>></blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>