Hi Tom, > > Where do I find the sysadmin policy for evaluating whether a blocking > > request is considered „unreasonable“? > > There isn't one. I'm not entirely sure what it would say if it existed > as it is hard to write such things down in concrete terms as it is by > definition a very subjective judgement.
Hm, some of the sysadmins claimed that the problems in the CT should not be fixed because the sysadmins would never be unreasonable. Now you tell me that you did not even come to a common understanding would the word "reasonable" should mean. My conclusion is that I should simply ignore this argument by the sysadmins. > > I have been repeatedly told that making the voting right dependent upon > > the edit right is not a problem and that the CT do not need to be fixed, > > because the sysadmin team will always be reasonable. At the same time, > > the same people tell me that it is entirely reasonable to block my edit > > right and to thus remove my voting right. I see a contradiction here. > > > > I (and several others) have explained the problem again and again. > > My problem is that the CTs seem, to me, to be making a reasonable effort > to describe a workable way to determine who is an active contributor and > all I've seen in response is ever more implausible scenarios which > involve some large number of people collaborating maliciously over a > long period of time to somehow subvert that definition. I do not assume malice. I simply assume that people do not care about the harm that their actions are doing to the community. > If you have a better way of defining "active contributor" that is > workable then please tell us what it is. I see no reason to limit the voting right to people who fit the definition of "active contributors". > > I once made a constructive proposal for one potential way to fix the > > problem, which was met both with well-grounded criticism and with > > personal attacks. Hardly anyone of the people who criticised my > > suggestion have made any efforts to seriously work towards alternative > > solutions to the problem, and those who did were themselves ignored. > > What exactly was this constructive proposal? I have made two different proposals: 1. Enforce an agreement to the ODbL (and maybe to all other share-alike licenses), but ask again if a move to a non-share-alike license is planned in the future. Add a provision for non-responding people (i.e. opt-out rather than opt-in). 2. Do not make the voting right dependent upon actions of the sysadmins. Do not take away the voting right from people who once held it. Only allow to clean up the database of possible voters by removing non-responding people. There are also a number of other ways to fix the problem, but I see no point in spending a lot of time explaining and discussing if the OpenStreetMap teams with power (i.e. sysadmins and license WG) simply do not care. The license WG insist on not guaranteeing me a voting right. The sysadmins insist on blocking my edit right until I accept this. But I insist that this is no way to treat the mappers, who are the life of OpenStreetMap. Olaf _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
