[Tagging] Revisiting proposal/voting scheme

moltonel 3x Combo moltonel at gmail.com
Thu Mar 19 09:10:17 UTC 2015

On 18/03/2015, Kotya Karapetyan <kotya.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:00 PM, moltonel 3x Combo <moltonel at gmail.com>
>  wrote:
>> Why should the page be "converted to a feature page" ?
> Because I would mark a proposal page as such in some place. Otherwise a
> stable 10 year-old feature page cannot be easily distinguished from a
> proposal created yesterday. I see something like moving the page to a
> different namespace or removing a "proposal" status. Not changing the
> content or rewriting the page.

Ok, I understand better where you're coming from. But this doesn't
gain anything compared to the current workflow. You still have a flag
day when the proposal is deemed done/accepted. You're losing the
information that it's a design doc under consideration (in my view,
tagging schemes remain "under consideration" until they get widely
used in the db, regardless of their approved/rejected status).

Let's take an example. Somebody writes a proposal about the smoothness
key that finally solves all the problems and has unanimous acceptance.
If you convert that to a Key:Smoothness page, the wiki becomes
completely disconnected from the db. If instead you keep the proposal
page as-is, but add links on the key pages with "conforms to /
contradicts proposal foo" links for each value, you get the best of
both worlds.

>> Feature pages and proposals should be writen in parallel, not one
>> after the other.
> I am promoting writing a single "feature proposal" page, which, after the
> initial discussion, is made just a "feature" page. So nothing is written
> one after another.

It may be just editing/moving an existing page rather than creating a
new one, but you still have one after the other. At no point do you
have both the feature page and the proposal available at the same

Remember that, in my initial suggestion, the feature page and the
proposal serve two different purposes : to document existing practices
and to document desired practice. I think it's important to clearly
distinguish the two in the wiki. The wiki is here to guide, not to

More information about the Tagging mailing list