[Tagging] Changing proposal process rules - RFC

Lukas Richert lrichert at posteo.de
Wed Jan 6 19:20:22 UTC 2021

On 06/01/2021 10:08, Marc_marc wrote:
> another point that seems important to me is the lack of quality of some
> negative votes: lack of participation in the RFC, systematic refusal if
> too long, systematic refusal if depreciation of a tag. this is obviously
> not encouraging (memory of the proposals on fire hydrants a few years
> ago, it took too much proposal for the "too long to read" to stop with
> this argument, they finally read just as much but in several times).

This seems to be my current problem - half of commentors want everything 
quantified and described precisely. The other half now say it is 
"overworked" and too long. And the comments only come up during voting 
when I'm not supposed to change anything in the proposal anymore. I give 

Overall, I too would be in favour of having a vote-by-email system that 
is sent out to all frequent mappers. Thus, many more mappers might 
become involved in thinking about tagging as a whole. Any-tag-you-want 
can also backfire with many nonsensical tags that show up 1-5 times in 
the entire database when it would be more beneficial to think about a 
uniform tagging scheme. Perhaps a committee that can infrequently veto 
any truly horrible proposals would be a compromise for those that are 
scared of newbies? But then it becomes difficult to determine who 
belongs to that committee.

More information about the Tagging mailing list