Proposed features/change vote counting rules - remove dead rule

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
make proposal voting outcome more logical
Status: Approved (active)
Proposed by: Mateusz Konieczny
Drafted on: 2021-01-05
RFC start: 2021-01-05
Vote start: 2021-02-18
Vote end: 2021-03-04

Proposal

Change the rule on what counts as successful vote by removing

"A rule of thumb for" and "but other factors may also be considered (such as whether a feature is already in use)."

from

"A rule of thumb for "enough support" is at least 8 approval votes and at least 75 % approval, (a simple way of counting is that a minimum of 3 yes votes for every no vote sufficient), but other factors may also be considered (such as whether a feature is already in use)."

resulting in

""Enough support" is at least 8 approval votes and at least 75 % approval, (a simple way of counting is that a minimum of 3 yes votes for every no vote sufficient)."

Vacatio legis

This rules (if accepted) apply to votes started on 2021-03-10 or later

Cosmetic changes

Some additional cosmetic edits may be necessary such as adding new "Historic note" in Proposal_process#Approved.

Rationale

One of barriers for new contributors in various projects (from ones like OSM to companies and governments and board games) is the official rules "as written" often mismatch from how rules are actually applied. This is unwanted if you want to avoid unneeded barriers.

So I propose to modify one rule on Proposal process page to remove parts that are not actually applied and can be misleading.

Removed part of rule is currently misleading as it is not applied in a long time (if it ever was done). Removal matches rule description with how they actually work, making it less confusing for people learning about the process. Having rules stating one thing and actual practice working differently is bringing no benefits,

It is also not clear who would decide how the threshold should be adjusted. Changing threshold resulting changing outcome would be controversial and is not done, if it was something that was ever done.

And it is not needed since existing use is a factor already considered by the community during an RFC and vote. People are far more likely to vote against something deprecating major tags, already in a significant use or being a big change in some way.

Thus, there is no need for an independent criterion regarding existing use.

Applies to

Proposal process

External discussions

  • tagging mailing list post on 2021-01-05

Voting

Voting closed

Voting on this proposal has been closed.

It was approved with 31 votes for, 0 votes against and 0 abstentions.

Thanks for voting!

  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Change is minor, but removes something that is confusing - and trying to use this rule would result in a pointless drama. Yes, it is a tiny change, but my attempt to change multiple things at once failed. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. nice cleanup and I like your KISS proposals --Marc marc (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I support removing vague and unenforceable criteria. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. @Mateusz: no problem we can vote yes for each small modification. --Nospam2005 (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Nice and sweet at reducing confusion; I like it! --Penegal (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Good modification to define clear voting procedure less prone to manipulation and lobbying. A good partial step to increase the accessibility and self-governance of the OSM community. --Bert Araali (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Nice to make this simpler. --Jeisenbe (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Thanks Mateusz, this wording is clearer. --Jmapb (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I second ZeLonewolf's comment on this. --501ghost (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Adamfranco (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Fizzie41 (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. What about raising the quorum as well? -- Dieterdreist (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I am not planning to make proposal for that. If you think that it is a good idea - feel free to propose it! (with explanation why it is a good idea). I am considering also extracting part that would require linking wiki account to osm account to be eligible to vote from original bundle, but I am not 100% sure on that. Next vote that I will initiate is likely Proposed features/remove link to Wikidata from infoboxes Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Lejun (talk) 08:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I never did understand who / how would decide whether existing use could outweigh a vote. Surely, the existing use base is a factor taken into account during discussion and people are more likely to vote in favour of a minimal change to tagging than to vote for a massive change. So, existing use is already catered for.--PeterPan99 (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
and if there is significant existing use, there is also a good probability that we wouldn't vote at all, but simply agree on some documentation to put without voting.--Dieterdreist (talk) 09:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I approve this proposal. i second it because it will act as abasis in guading whoever will be contributing to the OSM --bukenya janan (talk)

  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Gileri (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --JannikK (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --ForgottenHero (talk) 09:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Something B (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Lenny (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Chris2map (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Fanfouer (talk) 11:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Gendy54 (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Dakon (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Rjw62 (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Robybully (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --AntMadeira (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Eginhard (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Maxbe (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Riiga (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --JIDB (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

See also

Comments

Please comment on the discussion page.

References