On Tuesday, 7 June 2011, Ed Avis <e...@waniasset.com> wrote: > > The process is pretty simple really: > > - decide what licence you want without bothering to hold a vote
A lot of thought and consultation went into the proposed licence and polls were taken to back up the conclusions. Of course, the fact that the process took years has led to plenty of mappers who can claim not to have been asked. They've all been asked now, though, and the results speak for themselves. > - get everyone to sign up to new contributor terms allowing that licence Indeed. Asking people seems like an excellent way to address your "no vote" concern. > > - block anyone who says no from contributing > > and presto! you have your 2/3 majority of active contributors. Such an approach could possibly work, albeit at the cost of losing the community if the community held the process to be unfair. The fact is, though, that people who said no have not yet been blocked from contributing and the 2/3 majority has already been reached. The wrong kind of majority, perhaps? I'm reminded of an argument I was drawn into at the Munich Oktoberfest last year. Smoking is now banned indoors in Bavaria, and one chap, who claimed to be a lawyer, was intent on having a smoke regardless. He considered the law undemocratic. It had been brought in by a referendum forced on the government by a citizen's petition. The referendum was carried. This guy reasoned that lots of smokers abstained from voting because the result was a foregone conclusion, therefore a non-democratic result. How shall we define democracy in OSM? I'm heavily drawn to a model where the course of action endorsed by 99% of those voting can be deemed legitimate. Dermot -- -------------------------------------- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
