On 18/03/2015, Frederik Ramm <[email protected]> wrote: > So please, don't go over board here by trying to force-involve every > mapper in tag votes; they're simply not important enough, and they > *should not be*. Don't try to make them important, lasting, or binding.
+1 to all that. While I think that "voting" is very usefull, I think the whole concept of "accepting" a proposal (all the related arguments about voter thresholds) should be scraped entirely. Instead, how about revisiting the purpose of proposals pages vs key/tag pages : * key/tag pages would document the actual use (mainly observed via taginfo) * proposal pages would document a desired use (and include the current list of supporters/opponents) * ideally both pages would reference each other (many to many), maybe using a "used/encouraged/discouraged by <link>" template * key/tag pages could be kept up to date fairly objectively * proposal voters should put the page on their watchlist, in case a change in the proposal changes their opinion * proposals should only be "end-of-lifed" if there is near-unanimous opposition and near-zero actual usage This should clarify the old question of whether the wiki does/should document usage or intent. It'll allow competing proposals to coexist more visibly. It keeps the interesting "opinion poll" use of voting, while removing the obnoxious "proposal is ready ! vote now so that we can start using it !" calls. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
