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
