[Tagging] Separating usage docs from design docs (was: Increasing voting participation)

moltonel 3x Combo moltonel at gmail.com
Wed Mar 18 13:14:52 UTC 2015

On 18/03/2015, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> So please, don't go over board here by trying to force-involve every
> mapper in tag votes; they're simply not important enough, and they
> *should not be*. Don't try to make them important, lasting, or binding.

+1 to all that. While I think that "voting" is very usefull, I think
the whole concept of "accepting" a proposal (all the related arguments
about voter thresholds) should be scraped entirely.

Instead, how about revisiting the purpose of proposals pages vs key/tag pages :
* key/tag pages would document the actual use (mainly observed via taginfo)
* proposal pages would document a desired use (and include the current
list of supporters/opponents)
* ideally both pages would reference each other (many to many), maybe
using a "used/encouraged/discouraged by <link>" template
* key/tag pages could be kept up to date fairly objectively
* proposal voters should put the page on their watchlist, in case a
change in the proposal changes their opinion
* proposals should only be "end-of-lifed" if there is near-unanimous
opposition and near-zero actual usage

This should clarify the old question of whether the wiki does/should
document usage or intent. It'll allow competing proposals to coexist
more visibly. It keeps the interesting "opinion poll" use of voting,
while removing the obnoxious "proposal is ready ! vote now so that we
can start using it !" calls.

More information about the Tagging mailing list