[Talk-GB] No more voting on mechanical edits

[Dan S]

2014-12-18 12:19 GMT+00:00 SomeoneElse <lists at atownsend.org.uk>:
> On 18/12/2014 10:24, Dan S wrote:
>>
>> Hi Matthijs,
>>
>> The DWG email used the word "consensus" inappropriately, since
>> consensus means everyone agreeing, and we didn't. However, consensus
>> is essentially impossible in big wiki communities like ours, so let's
>> assume there's a relative meaning of the term ;)
>
> Maybe I've been using the word inappropriately all these years but I've
> always thought that "concensus" meant "general agreement" - the idea that
> "we, as a community, generally think this" not that "absolutely everyone
> agrees with every part of something 100%".  It doesn't mean "10 people who
> could be bothered ticked a box on a wiki page".  It means, "we, as a
> community, have thought about it, discussed it, and although some people may
> disagree, the general feeling of the community is X".

I see - in my understanding "consensus" is, at least formally, a
stronger term than "general agreement" - "nem con" is perhaps a good
equivalent, meaning that no-one disagreed (although some may have
abstained). I do recognise it's not always always used that way.

> My DWG mail to Matthijs (part of which was selectively quoted to this list)
> contained a number of suggestions about how to best to proceed.  These
> included better explaining why a change now rather than later was
> beneficial, and why some of the other suggestions raised last time wouldn't
> work for the problem as he sees it. It also covered the issue of how to
> ensure that new mappers use the "correct" tags.  Thinking about these other
> issues is actually far more important than whether or not to do X mechanical
> edit.

Well I'm sorry for intervening in half a conversation. I was motivated
by my perception that someone somewhere had a mistaken impression of
unanimity!

Best
Dan