[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box
Warin
61sundowner at gmail.com
Thu Feb 6 06:37:27 UTC 2020
On 6/2/20 5:13 pm, European Water Project wrote:
> I see good arguments on both sides ....
>
> but I tend to agree with Joseph and Marc about the need to put
> substance over form.
>
> Maybe the proposal just passes based on objective measurements (vote
> ratio), but that if enough people post facto see enough flaws that it
> can be temporarily suspended.
>
> To help motivate authors, maybe the burden for getting an alternative
> tag implemented can be shifted to the naysayers. ie if they don't
> develop a new tag, the previous proposal goes through ...
The above idea I like!
>
> Best regards,
>
> Stuart
>
>
>
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 01:23, marc marc <marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com
> <mailto:marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
> the proposals (I'm talking generally, not just about this one) have
> often 2 flaws:
> - often too big (not this one)
> - often rfc too short, even active people still have remarks to make
> that the vote is already open, so they are stuck to sink the proposal
> (with the risk that its author gets demotivated) or to accept it
> hoping
> that the defects will be corrected later (which is always much more
> difficult in the osm world).
> with your opinion, I would have voted against it without hesitation.
> because it's the best way to improve what you think should be
> improved.
> i have in mind the proposal diaper<>changing table: totally ok for the
> idea, i voted against the first version because of the negative
> elements
> it contained.
>
> Le 06.02.20 à 01:10, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
> > Ok, so we should consider it approved in this case.
> >
> > (For context, both Mateusz Konieczny and myself have abstained,
> along
> > with 3 others, but had comments expressing concern about using
> > "give_box" instead of "free_box" or something easier to understand.)
> >
> > But hypothetically, what if there were even more comments expressing
> > reservations. This time it was over 25%, but what if it was 40% or
> > even 50%?
> >
> > Since the idea of this process is to reach consensus about a tag,
> > shouldn't critical comments be addressed by those voting "yes"?
> >
> > One thing that might help would be to recommend a comment along with
> > positive votes. Right now you can vote to approve without saying
> > anything about the objections voiced, and the template suggest
> this is
> > the usual way to do it.
> >
> > This seems to put too much weight on the percentage of approved vs
> > disapproved rather than the actual reasons for the votes.
> >
> > - Joseph Eisenberg
> >
> > On 2/6/20, Andrew Davidson <theswavu at gmail.com
> <mailto:theswavu at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >> On 6/2/20 4:02 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> >>> I see no good reason to count explicit "abstain but have comments"
> >>> exactly like "vote against".
> >>>
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> To abstain from voting is to not cast a vote. So there were 14
> votes
> >> with just under 93% approving.
> >>
> >>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200206/2a41f737/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Tagging
mailing list