While I also find inspiration in the Summer of Love blog post, I want to point out a very important quote from our Stack Exchange founder, Joel Spolsky:
The goal is simple: to keep Stack Exchange a welcoming, friendly place without lowering our standards..
(Emphasis is mine)
Instead of making changes to the tags now, why don't we talk about what the existing problems are with the current tags and then come up with a plan that takes into account Stack Exchange policy and the mistakes of the past (so we don't repeat them?)
I downvoted this proposal to indicate my disagreement with the proposed tags because they're really broad meta tags. I feel like my original answer's positive tone may have indicated that I agree with the porposed tags when in fact it's the concept of evaluating the tags and pointing out their flaws that I do in fact agree with. (Remember, downvotes on meta indicate you merely disagree)
Also, the Stack Exchange community has faced tagging issues in the past, and we should thoroughly examine these mistakes, and Stack Exchange policy. In the blog post The Death of Meta Tags, Jeff Atwood quotes Shog9 in regards to the subjective tag, which was destroyed by Jeff after much discussion and debate :
I think the [subjective] tag is useless at best and actively harmful at worst.
And harmful, because there are some users who actually believe that, like community wiki, it’s some sort of magic that allows you to ignore the normal posting standards.
Essentially, what he's saying is that tagging cannot and should not be used as an excuse to allow a certain class of questions that aren't designed for Stack Exchange, like those that are not constructive or that fit within other close reasons. For instance, we cannot justify opening such a blatantly ill-fitting question like https://pm.stackexchange.com/questions/6195/dos-and-donts-with-clients just because we gave it a fancy new tag and think it would be fun to have everyone list their favorite Do's and Don't's. (Note that constructiveness is the issue with this question, not whether it's on topic or not.)
Also, in Death of Meta Tags, Jeff Atwood takes the following quote from Aronut:
The reason meta-tags are a problem is that they do not describe the content of the question. They describe some other aspect of the question, like the author’s skill level, or the author’s motivation for asking it, or generally what “kind” of question it is (poll, how-to, etc.).
Meta-tags are actually a subset of a larger problem that I usually call dependent tags. These are tags that don’t say anything by themselves – you can’t tell what the question is about unless they’re paired with some other tag (or several of them). These tags are a problem because people don’t realize this and will often use that as the question’s only tag.
The proposed tags seem like they're the type of tags that Jeff Atwood and his team specifically discourages in this blog post.
The purpose of my answer and downvote isn't to discourage anyone from making or proposing improvements to the tags, but those improvements should fall within the Stack Exchange guidelines so that we don't repeat the same mistakes of the past.
Actions we take should be in-line with the guidelines of Stack Exchange, as it is they who will decide the fate of our site.