On 6/2/20 5:13 pm, European Water Project wrote:
I see good arguments on both sides ....
but I tend to agree with Joseph and Marc about the need to put
substance over form.
Maybe the proposal just passes based on objective measurements (vote
ratio), but that if enough people post facto see enough flaws that it
can be temporarily suspended.
To help motivate authors, maybe the burden for getting an alternative
tag implemented can be shifted to the naysayers. ie if they don't
develop a new tag, the previous proposal goes through ...
The above idea I like!
Best regards,
Stuart
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 01:23, marc marc <marc_marc_...@hotmail.com
<mailto:marc_marc_...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
the proposals (I'm talking generally, not just about this one) have
often 2 flaws:
- often too big (not this one)
- often rfc too short, even active people still have remarks to make
that the vote is already open, so they are stuck to sink the proposal
(with the risk that its author gets demotivated) or to accept it
hoping
that the defects will be corrected later (which is always much more
difficult in the osm world).
with your opinion, I would have voted against it without hesitation.
because it's the best way to improve what you think should be
improved.
i have in mind the proposal diaper<>changing table: totally ok for the
idea, i voted against the first version because of the negative
elements
it contained.
Le 06.02.20 à 01:10, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
> 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%?
>
> Since the idea of this process is to reach consensus about a tag,
> shouldn't critical comments be addressed by those voting "yes"?
>
> 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.
>
> This seems to put too much weight on the percentage of approved vs
> disapproved rather than the actual reasons for the votes.
>
> - Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On 2/6/20, Andrew Davidson <thesw...@gmail.com
<mailto:thesw...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> On 6/2/20 4:02 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>>> I see no good reason to count explicit "abstain but have comments"
>>> exactly like "vote against".
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> To abstain from voting is to not cast a vote. So there were 14
votes
>> with just under 93% approving.
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
