[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic

[stevea]

Martin's "reply to some unilaterally writing on the key:historic page..." and "intended to say (something extraordinary) on one end and on the other end (something vague)" sort of "nudge ahead" this dizzying proposal, but not by much.  I'm not complaining at the extra clarification.

But it doesn't need clarification.  It needs to be re-stated from scratch what it's about and what it does.  (Or will do if Approved).  Otherwise we start with muddy water and end up with muddier water.

Truly, I don't wish to disparage or insult, but clarify.  As of now, I can only get there with a blank slate and a re-write.