Am Do., 6. Feb. 2020 um 01:11 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:
> Ok, so we should consider it approved in this case. > > (For context, both Mateusz Konieczny and myself have abstained, along > with 3 others, but had comments expressing concern about using > "give_box" instead of "free_box" or something easier to understand.) > > But hypothetically, what if there were even more comments expressing > reservations. This time it was over 25%, but what if it was 40% or > even 50%? > Actually, in the past we always have counted every kind of comment (vote yes / no and abstain) as part of the total, which indeed led to the situation that an (explicit) abstention effectively counted like a no-vote. Are we going to change this now? If yes, it should be documented (and maybe also voted upon). > Since the idea of this process is to reach consensus about a tag, > shouldn't critical comments be addressed by those voting "yes"? > +1, although not a requirement, it should ideally be like this. Sometimes the "nay-sayers" do not have real arguments (something like "the amenity tag is overcrowded" is not an argument, IMHO), so its hard to reply with something to convince them. > One thing that might help would be to recommend a comment along with > positive votes. Right now you can vote to approve without saying > anything about the objections voiced, and the template suggest this is > the usual way to do it. > You can (and some do) agree with a comment, I would not require this, at the time of voting, there already have been lots of discussions and shared arguments, usually, so a confirmation of the result should be sufficient. Cheers Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
