[Tagging] Changing proposal process rules - RFC

[Mateusz Konieczny]

It is possible to have abandoned proposal and 
de facto tag.

There is no such thing as "de facto proposal"

Maybe "on hiatus" euphemism would be a good solution
to mark proposals as abandoned in way that would be
less irritating to people who made them?


Jan 7, 2021, 09:44 by joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com:

> It doesn't make sense to return them to "draft" status, because that status is only for proposals which have never been announced with a RFC. 
>
> It might be reasonable to move some of the older "proposed" ones to "abandoned" - but this has been controversial in the past, because the proposal author will often say "hey, it's not abandoned, I'm actually using this tag", and a number of proposal have resulted in "de facto" tags without every getting voted on. 
>
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 12:38 AM Minh Nguyen <> minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us> > wrote:
>
>> Vào lúc 22:39 2021-01-06, Graeme Fitzpatrick đã viết:
>>  > 
>>  > On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 at 14:57, Joseph Eisenberg 
>>  > <>> joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>>  
>>  > <mailto:>> joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>> >> wrote:
>>  > 
>>  >     3) Proposed status (207)
>>  > 
>>  > 
>>  > Further to that, once a proposal goes to Underway, if it hasn't then 
>>  > been moved to Voting within "3 months", then it automatically gets 
>>  > returned to Draft, so that it disappears from the Proposed list, & you, 
>>  > as the owner, get a message to say that has happened.
>>  
>>  The automatic return to draft status is eminently doable with a tweak to 
>>  the existing proposal page status template. The notification would 
>>  require something more advanced, maybe an extension but more likely a bot.
>>  
>>  If I remember correctly, until about six months ago, Yurikbot was 
>>  automatically updating data items to note each tag's status [1] based on 
>>  the proposal discussion statement [2]. Without that in place, a proposal 
>>  that automatically reverts to draft status based on the date in the 
>>  template would require manually editing the infobox of any corresponding 
>>  tag description page to note the new status. Perhaps the bot could be 
>>  revised to keep these things in sync once again.
>>  
>>  [1] >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Property:P6
>>  [2] >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Property:P11
>>  
>>  -- 
>>  >> minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
>>  
>>  
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  Tagging mailing list
>>  >> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>  >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210107/1e812f21/attachment.htm>