[Tagging] Revisiting proposal/voting scheme

[David Bannon]

On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 10:24 +0100, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
> On 18/03/2015, David Bannon <dbannon at internode.on.net> wrote:
> > No, I'm sorry but I don't see how an interested party can be expected to
> > objectively determine what the discussion concluded.
> > [...]
> > No, sorry, but a vote and an outcome may offend some politically correct
> > members but it is necessary.
> 
> Don't you see the contradiction in those statements ? 

Yep, you are right, careless wording on my part.  The suggestion was
that discussion on the list; determine its finished; proposal goes to
(sort of) "approved".  I suggested that a vote is still needed _after_
that stage, as current practise. So, yep, someone is still 'determining'
but its not the end point.

> ....
> I'm not sure why you see the proposed workflow changes as turning the
> wiki into an 'unmoderated' thing.

The suggestion was everyone was free to edit as they see fit. At
present, proposed edits are floated past the list for review. Drop that
review and its unmoderated IMHO.
> 
> 
> > New users to OSM need to see the idea of 'approved' keys and values.
> 
> I do not see that at all. Only after a few years of editing did I
> venture into the Proposal namespace on the wiki, and I was still far
> removed from the concept of "approved proposals". Editor presets,
> default rendering, existing data, general wiki pages, and taginfo is
> what guided me (in that order).
> 

Again, maybe careless wording on my part. "Editor designers need to to
see ....".

I think the discussion has moved along anyway hasn't it ?

David