[Tagging] Wiki vote threshold
61sundowner at gmail.com
Tue Mar 3 01:58:01 UTC 2015
On 3/03/2015 12:31 PM, David Bannon wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 17:07 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
>> The current wiki vote guidelines read:
> Bryce, I see what you want to achieve but not sure if I agree on the
>> Consider instead this wording:
>> There is no firm definition of 'enough' votes.
> Too subjective ! (Finally, I got to say that on this list!)
>> ..... A strong proposal will have:
>> 8 or more unanimous approval votes.
>> 16 or more votes, with a supermajority (75%) positive
>> or abstaining.
> OK, but puzzled about 'abstaining' votes. If someone voted, its almost
> always yes or no. Lets not count all possible voters please !
I'd take that as the votes cast not the number of tagging group members.
>> A history of tagging consistent with the proposal,
>> from five or more active mappers. This mapping often
>> starts during the RFC phase, and can be very helpful
>> in refining the proposed tagging.
> Going to be very difficult to document, to establish the facts. Great
> idea to encourage but to make a proposal dependant on it.....
There are a number of proposals in the draft stage that people are using
.. some have been in draft for years.
>> With OSM's open tagging policy you need not wait for the wiki
>> to start tagging. The wiki is not a collection of 'rules',
>> and mappers and rendering services are free to ignore your
> Indeed, but more emphasis is needed on the impact of others ignoring
> your impromptu tags. Truth is, tagging effort is wasted if it is
> As I have said before, you can make up new words when speaking to
> someone, but unless you agree on their meaning, you won't be understood.
As I see it there are 3 'vote thresholds' ;
The tagging group ... to get 'approved' status.
The mappers themselves - find it usefull and features that match the tag.
The renderers who find a tag frequently used or significant and judge
the feature worth placing on 'their' maps.
Making the tagging groups 'approval' more onerous will simply drive
people to add the tag (and hopefully documentation) without going to the
tagging group at all. Thus possibly leading to more 'bad' tags? I'd
rather try to attract the new tags before they get used?
The rejection of tags by the tagging group may reflect on the
discussions made during the comments period - some ignored, some not
persuasive enough, and some having no participation at all in the
discussion thus unable to persuade or be persuaded! The 'failure' of a
vote not only reflects poorly on the proposal but the authors, both the
proposer and the tagging group as a whole. A 'bad' tag may be changed to
a better description during discussions, if the persuasion is good
enough, or abandoned for a better tag again if the persuasion is good
The 'failure' of a proposal to gain the required number of votes (either
for or against) to me reflects extremely badly on the tagging group....
thus my thoughts on an expiry time for the required number of votes ..
decreasing it to 0 at say 6 weeks...!!!! Certainly any proposal that has
been in voting stage for over a year deserves some form of termination.
/No physician is really good before he has killed one or two patients./
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging