I look forward to a new vote and will vote in favour of what you're proposing now.
Polyglot On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 8:29 PM Nikulainen, Jukka K < jukka.nikulai...@helsinki.fi> wrote: > Hello Paul, and thank you for your input! > > You are indeed correct that my follow-up proposal would very radically cut > corners and be, to say the least, unorthodox. I'm certainly sorry if it > offended the sensibilities of anyone. > > I can see now that it could be construed as malicious and you are > certainly right that implementing a new vote on a new proposal would not be > an excessive amount of work. > > Indeed, doing a new proposal and a new vote seems the right thing to do, > and I'll get to it soon! > > Please let me explain the rationale my odd follow-up proposal, as a few > lines in your response did catch my eye: > > > 1) Your analysis is correct. The new proposal would meet with universal > acclaim and pass unanimously. > > I don't quite understand how you could possibly have reached the > conclusion that I would expect "universal acclaim" or unanimity, from > anything that I've written in the follow-up. It seems to me painstakingly > obvious that neither would ensue, judging only from the opposing votes and > critical comments on the original proposal. > > Furthermore, responding to your second point, I was not aware that > "universal acclaim" was required for a proposal to pass as you suggest. At > least the proposal process wiki page seems to say otherwise. But of course > I could just be moronically illiterate, in which case: mea maxima culpa! > > I would also argue that my follow-up proposal isn't based on blitheness. > Rather it is based on the sixteen approving votes on the original proposal > and the quite acute and perceptive critical comments they contained and > conveyed. Nor is expediency alone my motivation (though I must admit, it is > a consideration too). > > I, rather, worry whether enough people will be interested to vote again on > a similar proposal only with changed tag-values. Many of the interesting > critical comments and interested people in fact came forth only after > voting had started and the proposal could no longer be changed. It would be > a shame if the idea (which, again, _did_ garner support on the first round) > would be lost in the absence of interest on a second proposal and vote. But > maybe I just worry too much. > > Sincerely, > Jukka Nikulainen (Tolstoi21) > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
