The issue obviously isn't in the *tagging*. It is the unknown aspect of what is expected AFTER the tagging.
I see the tagging as simply a mechanism to force action upon the PMC to go down a route which the PMC has not decided, from what I can tell, to go down. Maybe I'm wrong. But your reply tends to support that interpretation. The tag, per se, is not the goal. The goal is to "push" 2.5.0 when, again from what I can tell, the PMC has not decided that such a push is warranted/needed/desired/whatever. So if you want to tag, first generate a roadmap, that can be shared and discussed with the PMC, and the dev community, what that 1st step is intended to lead us to. But let's not pretend that such tagging is simply noting a SVN revision. You may complain that I "single handedly" do Foo and Bar and other dictatorial and dangerous stuff, but AFAIK, I've never done or proposed anything w/o bringing it up to the list 1st (ala PROXY support, mod_wsgi, health checks... etc...). Even w/ releases and tags I give people more than 24hours notice. Unless, of course, your tag was under Lazy Consensus, in which case my "veto" was valid, if more "strong" than required. In which case, I am sorry for that.
