[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 6. Feb. 2020 um 01:11 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>:

> 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%?
>


Actually, in the past we always have counted every kind of comment (vote
yes / no and abstain) as part of the total, which indeed led to the
situation that an (explicit) abstention effectively counted like a no-vote.
Are we going to change this now? If yes, it should be documented (and maybe
also voted upon).



> Since the idea of this process is to reach consensus about a tag,
> shouldn't critical comments be addressed by those voting "yes"?
>


+1, although not a requirement, it should ideally be like this. Sometimes
the "nay-sayers" do not have real arguments (something like "the amenity
tag is overcrowded" is not an argument, IMHO), so its hard to reply with
something to convince them.



> 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.
>


You can (and some do) agree with a comment, I would not require this, at
the time of voting, there already have been lots of discussions and shared
arguments, usually, so a confirmation of the result should be sufficient.

Cheers
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200206/5032d2b6/attachment-0001.htm>