[Tagging] Extended Conditions - response to votes

Eckhart Wörner ewoerner at kde.org
Thu Jul 5 15:20:32 BST 2012


Hi Frederik,

Am Donnerstag, 5. Juli 2012, 14:30:49 schrieb Frederik Ramm:
>     reading this discussion again demonstrates how useless our voting 
> process is.

+1, but for completely different reasons, but that is another story.

> 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.

I am sorry, but my definition of "obvious" is a bit different:
* "the issue has not been thoroughly discussed": the issue has been discussed for more than four years now, and the discussion has earned the label "thorough"
* "there is no consensus about which problem exactly it should solve" - the problem that should be solved is pretty clear, most (all?) people even agree that the problem needs to be solved, the discussion is only about the solution to choose.
* "implications for mappers or users": it allows mappers to add a lot of information that is important (especially for routing software) and that they couldn't add before in a meaningful way (i.e. other than note=maxspeed is only valid between 10pm and 6am). It defines a meaningful transitive closure of existing tagging practice, and therefore should not give anyone a surprise.

> This means the whole thing isn't ready for voting. Yet I read that 

If a discussion stops to be fruitful, it is definitely time for voting.

> voting was "full underway". You cannot vote *instead* of having a 
> discussion, it won't work. Legitimate criticism cannot be countered by 
> "but we got 51% in the vote for this". Whoever started a vote on 
> something so un-ready is certainly not helping anyone.

That would be me.
As has been pointed out already, the discussion stopped being fruitful, and the discussion stopped - an attempt to revive it failed. A good part of the criticism that appeared in the vote hasn't even been mentioned in the discussion phase.
Also, the problem with "legitimate" criticism is the subjectivity of "legitimate". There has been quite a lot of criticism, which several people tried to address. Yet the same criticism appear over and over again (I stopped counting people who ignored the limitations of the 0.6 API). Does this make criticism legitimate?

Eckhart



More information about the Tagging mailing list