[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