Hi,
Simon Ward wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 02:44:53AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> Unless you're willing sign something that says "I agree that OSMF will
>> make two attempts to contact me at my registered e-mail address with
>> information on how to vote on an upcoming license change suggestion, and
>> if I don't react then that counts as an "abstain" vote."
>
> Oh, and there should most definitely be more than one attempt at making
> contact. I assumed it went without saying. I must remember not to make
> too many of these assumptions. :)
Well in the current setup, it is in OSMF's interest to reach you,
because if they want to change the license, they need a "yes" from 50%
of active mappers. (It is not sufficient to simply write to all active
mappers, and then if 100 of them reply and 51 are in favour, the change
goes through.) So that hurdle is rather high; anyone who cannot be
reached or who doesn't respond is by default a "no" vote. That's why I
think it is valid to try to keep the pool of people smaller by saying
"active contributor" with the definition behind it.
If we were to say we want to poll every single contributor past and
present, then it would be absolutely impossible to even get 50% of them
to respond, much less to understand the proposal or be bothered to vote.
In such a scenario, you could not possibly put the hurdle at "50% of the
electorate" but you would have to say "50% of people who respond". And
this then requires some sort of definition of how much time and money
must be spent on OSMF side to reach the person ("what, my email address
was invalid, if you had just googled my name you would have found my new
address..." etc.)
So: EITHER we do "50% of all active contributors (with no reply being a
no vote)", or we do "50% of all those who have ever contributed *and*
bother to reply".
Bye
Frederik
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
