Re: [Tagging] Wiki vote threshold

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:26 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > any idea how to determine this? Please see my examples above of different > tags for different features. Obviously a tag for obelisks will very > unlikely get 1 uses and more, while this might still be very few for a > waste bin or

Re: [Tagging] Wiki vote threshold

2015-03-04 10:57 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > status = 'de facto' ? any idea how to determine this? Please see my examples above of different tags for different features. Obviously a tag for obelisks will very unlikely get 1 uses and more, while this might still be very few f

Re: [Tagging] Wiki vote threshold

On 4/03/2015 7:53 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: I guess I am suggesting there are quite a lot, technically, under way. I'd rather see them either make it the 'official' list or be rejected. After, say, 1 year in any one status, move them to status ... 'Expired', 'Resting', 'Paused '

Re: [Tagging] Wiki vote threshold

2015-03-04 9:35 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com >: After, say, 1 year in any one status, move them to status ... 'Expired', 'Resting', 'Paused ' or ? ... pining for the fjords? This tag's not dead, it's Cheers, Andy ___

Re: [Tagging] Wiki vote threshold

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 1:46 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > -1 > Everyone can see from the dates since when a proposal is proposed. > Something like "expired", "resting" or "paused" does not have any benefit > besides discouraging unexperienced mappers from using it, while it may > already be "d

Re: [Tagging] Wiki vote threshold

2015-03-04 9:35 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > After, say, 1 year in any one status, move them to status ... 'Expired', > 'Resting', 'Paused ' or ? They could later be 'resuscitated' to some other > status? Unless they are in status 'Voting' then judged on the total votes? -1 Eve

Re: [Tagging] Wiki vote threshold

> > I guess I am suggesting there are quite a lot, technically, under way. > I'd rather see them either make it the 'official' list or be rejected. > > > After, say, 1 year in any one status, move them to status ... > 'Expired', 'Resting', 'Paused ' or ? They could later be 'resuscitated' to > s

Re: [Tagging] Wiki vote threshold

On 4/03/2015 5:56 PM, David Bannon wrote: On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 22:06 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Jan van Bekkum wrote: I find it quite hard to find existing proposals, perhaps because there are so many abandoned ones. * A

Re: [Tagging] Wiki vote threshold

On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 22:06 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Jan van Bekkum > wrote: > I find it quite hard to find existing proposals, > perhaps because there are so many abandoned ones. > * A list of active votes can be found at

Re: [Tagging] Wiki vote threshold

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > > I find it quite hard to find existing proposals, perhaps because there >> are so many abandoned ones. >> > - A list of active votes can be found at Category:Proposed features "Voting"

Re: [Tagging] Wiki vote threshold

In exchange for a positive vote I am more than happy to share the links :-) - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/power_supply%3Dintermittent - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/parking%3Dcar_storage - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_

Re: [Tagging] Wiki vote threshold

On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 13:35 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote: Jan, for a non English speaker, you put it very well ! I agree with what you have said except, perhaps dropping the voting altogether. Voting does focus the group and as it has a formal finish date, might (just might) encourage closure. Bu

Re: [Tagging] Wiki vote threshold

On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 13:36 -0700, jgpacker wrote: >We should try to look for other systems, such as Loomio [1] The current approach is, perhaps a touch clunky but its stable and predictable as a service. Mailing lists and wikis have been around for a long time. There are almost identical service

Re: [Tagging] Wiki vote threshold

It may be a bit off-topic, but as I have expressed elsewhere, I think one of the problems with the current voting process is the infrastructure. I believe that using a mailing list plus wiki voting worked ok so far, but needs to be updated. Most young people probably don't even know what a mailing

Re: [Tagging] Wiki vote threshold

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 5:35 AM, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > In summary I doubt if the proposed changes will bring an improvement, but > I wonder if we need voting at all, or only the preceding discussion. > The voting hurdle tends to force the discussion. That's the value of the vote. The proposed

Re: [Tagging] Wiki vote threshold

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > I don't think it is good to leave tags in a "floating state" for a long > time as it will prevent people from starting to use them. It isn't good > either to start using a tag as a kind of prototype and offer it for voting > later on. One wa

Re: [Tagging] Wiki vote threshold

"It isn't good either to start using a tag as a kind of prototype and offer it for voting later on." Why not? In one case I had an idea for tag that turned out to be poor one. Testing it by using saved producing proposal that maybe would seem reasonable but would have many problems. 2015-03-03 1

Re: [Tagging] Wiki vote threshold

At this moment I have three proposals the comment stage (campsite classification, vehicle storage, camping electricity supply) with a very simple purpose: to fill holes in the mapping possibilities for overlanders (people travelling for a long time with their own transport often through developing

Re: [Tagging] Wiki vote threshold

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: > > For me this shows that the current process for tag definition might miss a > few important steps. > +1 The process works well then the proposal itself is refined and improved through the process. The vote then becomes almost irrelevant. In

Re: [Tagging] Wiki vote threshold

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 2:46 AM, David Bannon wrote: > Its interesting to note that most 'no' were concerned it is a tourism > only tag despite that issue being discussed (and resolved ??) on this > list. > For me this shows that the current process for tag definition might miss a few important s

Re: [Tagging] Wiki vote threshold

On 3/03/2015 12:31 PM, David Bannon wrote: On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 17:07 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: The current wiki vote guidelines read: Bryce, I see what you want to achieve but not sure if I agree on the details. Consider instead this wording: There is no firm definition of 'enou

Re: [Tagging] Wiki vote threshold

On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 17:07 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > .. > 8 or more unanimous approval votes. > 16 or more votes, with a supermajority (75%) positive > or abstaining. Interesting to consider the current state of reception_desk proposal, some

Re: [Tagging] Wiki vote threshold

On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 17:07 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > The current wiki vote guidelines read: > Bryce, I see what you want to achieve but not sure if I agree on the details. > Consider instead this wording: > There is no firm definition of 'enough' votes. Too subjective ! (Finally, I

[Tagging] Wiki vote threshold

The current wiki vote guidelines read: *A rule of thumb for "enough support" is 8 unanimous approval votes or 15 total votes with a majority approval, but other factors may also be considered (such as whether a feature is already in use).* Consider instead this wording: *There is no firm defi