On Tue, 13 Jul 2010, Gervase Markham wrote: > On 11/07/10 04:18, Kai Krueger wrote: > > So far the the impressions I got from the members of the licensing group > > vary from anywhere between e.g. 10% data loss is acceptable to as high as > > 90% data loss is acceptable (as long as a majority of signed up accounts > > agree), which means as far as I can interpret, there is no where close to > > an agreed process even within the licensing group. > > I was not at SotM, but it seems fairly obvious: discussing whether X% of > dataloss is acceptable would lead to a big argument, for whatever value > X is. If we have to have the arguments for X, Y, Z and Q all at the same > time, that would be an enormous argument! Instead, it seems much wiser > to wait until we know the value of X (or, its value at any one > particular time, and its rate of change, if it is still changing) and > then just have one argument. > > After all, if X is 99.99%, then there will probably be very little > argument - which would be great. > > Gerv
We would all agree that if 99.9% of active contributors agreed to the changeover then the changeover had a mandate. Now Gerv, what is your lower limit? for number of contributors overall? number of active contributors quantity of data? I do not accept that a decision can be made without the numbers being set *first*. LIz _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
