[Tagging] Extended Conditions - response to votes

Martin Vonwald (Imagic) imagic.osm at gmail.com
Thu Jul 5 13:59:37 BST 2012


Am 05.07.2012 um 14:30 schrieb Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>:

>   reading this discussion again demonstrates how useless our voting process is.

Sad, but true.

> It is obvious that this issue has not been thoroughly discussed, that there is no consensus about which problem exactly it should solve and what the implications for mappers or users would be.

Again sad, but true. But why hasn't it been thoroughly discussed? At some point the discussion simply stopped. A mail trying to revive the discussion didn't receive any response. 
From the last votings I have observed I have to state, that a lot - yes, really a lot - of people stay silent until the voting starts. And then they all jump out of their holes and scream Oppose, Oppose! Many of them - of course - don't have any suggestions how the proposal could be improved, it just sucks in their point of view. Thank you, great help.
BTW: I haven't voted yes for this proposal and also will not. But as I already wrote: the discussion simply stopped....

> This means the whole thing isn't ready for voting. Yet I read that voting was "full underway". You cannot vote *instead* of having a discussion, it won't work.

Right now I think we have to vote instead of discussing because it seems to be the only way to bring people to speak.

After writing all this I think that maybe not the voting is the problem, but the discussion. Especially  the discussions of controversial topics die quite fast because there are (at least) two sides who - of course - think that their solution is the one and only and it can never-ever be any better. Other opinions are ignored and therefore unresponded and we reach again the Game-Over-state. 
What we lack often is evolution. Someone suggests a feature, others provide feedback and the proposal is continuously updated until a majority agrees. But this isn't working, because the (constructive) feedback is missing and/or not acknowledged.

Enough rant - back to the beach ;-)
Martin


More information about the Tagging mailing list