12

It has been proposed that become a synonym for . In other words, any time a question is posted with the tag, the tag will be automatically and silently changed to , with no way to prevent that.

I disagree with this change, but I cannot cast a vote in disagreement. I have perfectly valid reasons for disagreeing with this change, and I am a 20k+ rep user, almost all of which is in the tag.

I think that I should be allowed to vote on this change.

Improve this question
16
  • That's actually quite easy to do for you: Retag a few c++0x questions in which you got score to c++11, and the next day you'll have the required score in c++11 to vote on the proposal. :)
    – sbi
    Commented May 16, 2011 at 14:29
  • 3
    @sbi: I don't think the [c++11] tag should exist. You're suggesting I join the enemy in order to defeat them from the inside. :)
    – John Dibling
    Commented May 16, 2011 at 14:31
  • @John: Now why would I do such a thing?? :D
    – sbi
    Commented May 16, 2011 at 14:33
  • 1
    Hmm, there was a discussion here on Meta about what we should do regarding the c++11 and c++0x tags. That would have been the appropriate place to discuss this before someone went to propose a tag synonym...
    – Cody Gray
    Commented May 16, 2011 at 14:59
  • 2
    More generally, I think the "5 upvotes in this tag" restriction should be lifted at least for 15k+ or 20k+ users. I think we're knowledgeable enough to know how the tagging system works and can be trusted not to do anything irresponsible. There are too many cases where tags are obscure and used only on a few questions, not enough for people to earn upvotes, but enough to be a bother.
    – Cody Gray
    Commented May 16, 2011 at 15:00
  • @Cody: I fail to see how that's not irrelevant. 1) I don't participate on MSO as much as SO, but that shouldn't mean that my opinion doesn't count. 2) GMan's opinion in your linked post agrees with me. Someone proposed the tag synonym anyway. So it wouldn't have mattered.
    – John Dibling
    Commented May 16, 2011 at 15:03
  • @John: I wasn't saying that you should have participated. I was more complaining that the person who proposed the tag synonym didn't participate. You were happy with things the way they were. The person who suggested the synonym obviously wasn't, and we already had a forum for him/her to voice that opinion. This is a fairly touchy issue among C++ developers, definitely one that needs to be discussed on Meta before action is taken. You've done the right thing by posting here, I didn't mean to criticize your behavior.
    – Cody Gray
    Commented May 16, 2011 at 15:05
  • @Cody: Gotcha. My mistake, I misinterpreted your comment. Sorry.
    – John Dibling
    Commented May 16, 2011 at 15:08
  • 4
    shouldn't the "target" tag have something to say about being a synonym or not? E.g. anyone with sufficient rep in c++0x should, IMHO, be able to say that c++11 isn't a synonym of c++0x and be able to vote on the question...
    – Ronald Landheer-Cieslak
    Commented May 16, 2011 at 15:10
  • @Ronald: I would go so far as to say that users with sufficient rep in just [c++] should be able to vote on the issue.
    – John Dibling
    Commented May 16, 2011 at 15:15
  • @Ronald: See this: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/91482/…
    – sbi
    Commented May 16, 2011 at 15:18
  • @John: That would seem fair in this case, but is hard to generalize across the whole of SO.
    – sbi
    Commented May 16, 2011 at 15:18
  • 2
    @JohnDibling: Initially that made obvious sense to me, but why should those that participate in [c++] but don't in [c++0x] have a vote? If you don't have 5 upvotes in either [c++0x] or [c++11], this neither affects you nor does participation in any other tag (e.g. lets say [boost]) necessarily transfer over.
    – Fred Nurk
    Commented May 16, 2011 at 15:27
  • @Fred: Because [c++0x] is [c++]. I'm posting a new question to address this.
    – John Dibling
    Commented May 16, 2011 at 15:33
  • (And, BTW, you do currently have a score of 15 on non-wiki [c++0x] answers, so this does affect you, but not because of [c++] participation.)
    – Fred Nurk
    Commented May 16, 2011 at 15:33

0

Reset to default

Browse other questions tagged .