incere apologies,
Michael
Da: Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
Inviato: martedì 4 agosto 2020 10:14
A: Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
Cc: Mateusz Konieczny ; Tag discussion, strategy and
related tools
Oggetto: Re: [Tagging] Have our tagging voting rules changed re
I agree.
Colin Smale skrev: (4 augusti 2020 11:26:30 CEST)
>On 2020-08-04 10:06, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
>> I'd suggest that if you vote no, it will be helpful for the community
>if you could elaborate on why you're voting no, without enforcing a
>reason as mandatory. Is it because this feature
sent from a phone
> On 4. Aug 2020, at 11:44, Jez Nicholson wrote:
>
> Frederik asks, "was our voting process changed recently", to which I believe
> the answer is, "yes, abstentions are no longer included in the count"
The “new” process is also flawed, as a no vote can bring a proposal to
sent from a phone
> On 4. Aug 2020, at 11:16, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> It might actually be better to introduce the opposite rule - that
> yes-votes need to explain why they are willing to dismiss sustained
> critical voices in the discussion.
This is a good point, and it is also
Frederik asks, "was our voting process changed recently", to which I
believe the answer is, "yes, abstentions are no longer included in the
count"
Please correct me if I'm mistaken. I don't at first glance see anything in
the process rules, but I'm outside in the sun using a phone...
On Tue, 4
On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 09:46, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> On 04.08.20 10:06, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> >> Have our tagging voting rules changed recently?
>
> > Which rules?
>
> Should I have written "was our voting process changed recently", or what
> exactly are you asking? I meant the established way of
On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 10:26, Colin Smale wrote:
> Putting a proposal to the vote should IMHO not be done unless the
> discussions are clearly pointing towards approval. A vote is not a
> substitute for the discussion, it should be a confirmation that
> consensus has been achieved.
With all the
On 2020-08-04 10:06, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> I'd suggest that if you vote no, it will be helpful for the community if you
> could elaborate on why you're voting no, without enforcing a reason as
> mandatory. Is it because this feature shouldn't be mapped, is it because
> there is an alternative
On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> looking at the "bare_soil" proposal I was surprised to read:
>
> "Any opposition vote without reason or suggestion will not be counted
> in the voting process."
>
> Is that something that we have added by consensus?
I don't think so - but
Hi,
On 04.08.20 10:06, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>> Have our tagging voting rules changed recently?
> Which rules?
Should I have written "was our voting process changed recently", or what
exactly are you asking? I meant the established way of proposing and
voting for tags as outlined in
sent from a phone
> On 4. Aug 2020, at 09:59, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> Has this been used in other votes in the past?
the instructions have always stated that opposing votes should explain why they
are against it. In practice this is not a significant hurdle, because many
reasons go like
To be more clear:
in
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Ground=2018441=2018440
I removed
"Any opposition vote without reason or suggestion will not be counted in the
voting process."as it is an undiscussed modification of a proposal voting and a
refusal to
I partially reverted
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Ground=prev=2014966
and followed
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process#Voting
Note that
"People should not just vote "oppose", they should give a reason for their
proposal, and/or
On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 08:57, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Have our tagging voting rules changed recently?
Which rules?
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
I'd suggest that if you vote no, it will be helpful for the community if
you could elaborate on why you're voting no, without enforcing a reason as
mandatory. Is it because this feature shouldn't be mapped, is it because
there is an alternative tag. So if the vote fails all this feedback can be
Hi,
looking at the "bare_soil" proposal I was surprised to read:
"Any opposition vote without reason or suggestion will not be counted in
the voting process."
Is that something that we have added by consensus?
It sounds like a somewhat sneaky measure to ignore opposition votes, or
discourage
16 matches
Mail list logo