(will do @Aklapper, sorry for the confusion!)
DC-Ops was something that was indeed created as part of T119944, which was in turn something that came up after many discussions, starting in our Puerto Rico offsite. I had it as part of my notes from the offsite and everyone was present there, so I'm not sure why people are surprised to see it and wondering about how it was created (@RobH also had multiple comments on T119944 around that tag, so I'm double-confused by his confusion :).
In any case, the reasoning behind this tag, is to reflect the organization of our team into subteams, as is presented in our organizational chart and our staff & contractors page. Of course we don't have to have a Phabricator tag for the subteam if there isn't any usefulness to it within Phabricator. I would personally hope that we could slowly start using it, and track and plan work for the subteam as a whole, perhaps set up a workboard with "up next"/"in progress"/"blocked on shipping"/"blocked on vendor" columns etc., to serve both the team internally and communicate it to its stakeholders. If the team itself doesn't find much value in things like that, we can certainly reconsider and drop the tag.
I agree with Faidon and do recall discussing during our off-site We will eventually splinter off into a sub-team within in ops but at this time we do not have a need to use the phabricator tag.
That being said, I do not have an issue with it being used or event that it exists on phabricator, but it should not used in-lieu of an ops-[site-name] tag.
My comments on T119944 were intended to relay that I didn't think it should be applied to those; however it ended up being applied anyhow against my request. I didn't block its creation, but I don't see much use for it right now. It seems to basically be a 'parent' project for the #ops-sitename projects, and I'm not sure its needed. It could be used to coordinate things with the entire team, but right now we do that coordination in a more finely grained projects by sitename.