[Tagging] >74% was: Feature Proposal - Voting - Rescue Stations

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 6:12 PM Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
wrote:


> would probably mean that some  proposals would be rejected just because
> they missed the quorum, especially when it is about a not so popular niche
> tagging question.
>

No, it would just mean that the voting period would need to be extended as
long as needed to allow for more participation.  This is already allowed
and encouraged in the documented process.  If a proposal is sitting at 7
votes and it needs 8, or sitting at 9 and needs 10, it is a simple matter
to send a second message out to the list asking for participation.

Of course, it would probably be instructive to look at the vote totals for
proposals over the last year or two and see how the vote counts are
actually distributed as I simply pulled the thresholds of 10 and 15 out of
thin air.

We might ask the question of why certain proposals have low vote totals.
Perhaps it's because people see that a proposal has already met the
threshold and don't find adding their vote to be useful.  Perhaps they find
the proposal complex or confusing and don't vote because they don't
understand it.  Or perhaps as you say it's because the topic is niche and
mappers simply don't care which tagging is used.

I think I would be more comfortable approving new brand new tagging for a
niche topic on a low vote total.  I'd be less comfortable with that for a
proposal that changes existing tagging.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210105/a3e7ac9a/attachment.htm>