Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
this made my day :-) As OSM has gone on I've found more and more that I'm attacked when people simply don't listen (I got flames in David Earls talk at SOTM when I said 'tag equivalences were going to be part of the original tagging system', people flamed me saying they thought that me hating tag equivalences was really bad, not listening that I said they were probably a good idea and part of the original ideas for the system!) so it's good to finally be attacked for my fake self's pronouncements. The next logical step is for someone to start posting to the list with my email address. At least then it's deniable when I change my mind :-) On Jul 14, 2010, at 12:42 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote: > Am 14.07.2010 11:08, schrieb Andy Allan: >> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Ulf Lamping >> wrote: > >>> See what our (IMHO not so) respectful OSMF chairman and project founder >>> Steve C had to say about license (working group) critics in December 2009: >>> >>> http://fakestevec.blogspot.com/2009/12/fable.html >> >> That wasn't written by Steve Coast, the "fake" blog is written by >> other people and is supposed to be satirical, but in this case is >> clearly attacking other members of the community. One of the >> characters is clearly based on you. I don't find it very funny or >> constructive. >> >> Steve Coast actually posts at the following blogs: >> http://www.opengeodata.org/ (with others) >> http://blog.stevecoast.com/ > > Deep apologies to Steve C that I accused him about things he didn't do. It's > really not my style to falsely accuse people - seems I really got a wrong > impression about that blog. > >>> I had hoped that after the dust settled a bit the OSMF learned from these >>> discussions, but reading the above legal talk thread I still see the same >>> elitist behaviour from the "inner circle" as before - very sad to see :-( >> >> It's a shame that you feel there's an "inner circle". It's worth >> bearing in mind that when a project grows to be more than 30-40 people >> that not everyone can be involved in everything all the time (and we >> have around 30-40 *thousand* people involved now). But there's no >> intention to create an inner circle or, by corrollary, exclude other >> people. What could we (you/me/LWG) do to make this more inclusive? > > For example remember positions like Richard Fairhursts in the thread (I know > that it's not an "official" OSMF/LWG position): "Of course, not everyone is a > member of OSMF, but if you don't choose to get involved in the running of the > project then you can't really complain if decisions are taken that aren't to > your liking." > > I have choosen "to get involved in the running of the project" by mapping a > lot of stuff, organising a local regular mapping group, helping in several > german OSM activities and whatnot. Now telling me to shut up about decisions > when I'm not a member of the OSMF is, well, disgusting IMHO. > > Remember: There are a lot of active OSM activists around the world that are > not OSMF members, a lot of them might not even speak english. > > Regards, ULFL > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
On 15 July 2010 20:28, James Livingston wrote: > How all that will work in practice, I don't know. That's the point, no one can know at this point, and if people are afraid to vote for odbl because of this things are likely to be a lot worst off. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
On 14/07/2010, at 9:52 PM, John Smith wrote: > On 14 July 2010 20:59, Richard Weait wrote: >> What do you suggest would be acceptable / unacceptable? > > I would consider things to fail if more than 5-10% of data disappears > in any region. At the very least it would be demoralising for anyone > that spent even a few hours working to make OSM data better. Every keep talking about 5% of the data disappearing, but being kept as-is and being remove aren't the only two possibilities. Being removed is only necessary is the person who first created it refuses. If the object has say 6 version and mapper 4 refuses, it can be reverted to version 3. If mapper 5 says yes and just added the street name, you should in theory be allowed to re-add that to the version 3 data. How all that will work in practice, I don't know. However part of it will still need to be dealt with, if nodes get removed but a way they are in doesn't, or things that are part of a relation. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
Richard Weait wrote: > >> Allow contributors to vote before the change over occurs, not just if >> they agree to license their data under ODBL or not... > > Interesting idea. How should this work? Something like?: > > ... steps leading to today > - users indicate ODbL acceptance or not > - summarize user replies: x replies, y accept. > - somebody processes all the results to show data effect > - publish those results > - users vote to proceed with license upgrade (or not) based on > published results. > - upgrade license (or not) based on user vote > > Or more simply. Ask users if they are willing to proceed. Calculate > and show users the results. Then ask users if that is good enough to > make it "official". > > Is this what you imagine? Is this acceptable to those reading this? That would be a great solution. It allows a decision based on facts, rather than what-if scenarios. At the same time, it ensures that this decision will be supported by the mapping community. > What are the details of the "- users vote..." step? Let's talk more > about this. The procedure could be similar to the one for future license changes: "Active contributors" can vote, 2/3 majority is required. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 7:07 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > I am simply saying that if you wanted to get involved in the decision > whether or not to ask users how they would licence their contributions, > there was a really simple way to do so: by joining OSMF. > If you want to be allowed to criticize us, join us? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Andy Allan wrote: > Further to what Frederik has said, there's a couple more points that > are important. The OSMF receives legal advice on matters relating to > the license change, and as far as I'm aware they are forbidden from > making the legal advice public. If I recall correctly there was a > problem about a year ago where the legal advice was publicly quoted > and it had to be redacted from the mailing lists. Such is the nature > of legal advice. > OSMF is not forbidden from making the advice public. It may be disadvantageous to some people who may not want it generally known, but it is not forbidden. The terms of engagement between OSMF and WSGR say that it is in the clients best interest to preserve the confidentiality of all communications. But this appears to be boilerplate and relate to Attorney-Client Privilege which is probably not applicable to the matters being dealt with. It also specifically relates to third-parties. OSMF members are not third-parties. I can't think of any scenario where it would be in the best interest of the OSMF board to withhold information from it's members. Perhaps someone can give examples of the kinds of legal advice that might fall into this category? Otherwise the suspicion has to be that there's a self-serving interest involved. 80n ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
In a project where there are endless copies of the data floating around the net I can't see how deleting non-trivial amounts of data is going to work anyway. What is going to stop people who don't care about the license change, or are just pissed off to lose "their" work, just re-uploading the deleted data, if necessary with minimal changes to defeat any checks there might be? My area was mostly blank before I started mapping but there were some roads traced very roughly from the old NPE maps which I then surveyed on the ground and aligned correctly. If that original user votes against the license change then would those roads be deleted from the db regardless of the fact I might have edited them multiple times since? If the answer to that is yes then I'm struggling to see why I wouldn't just re-upload the latest version that I edited and how I would be wrong if I did so. I would rather see a solution that doesn't require data to be deleted, so new contributions + significant edits are under the new license and maybe involving the planet files and the like being split by license until the day when the old license ceases to be an issue. If the data turns-over as frequently as people say then this needn't be a very long time. Kevin On 14 July 2010 12:52, John Smith wrote: > On 14 July 2010 20:59, Richard Weait wrote: > > What do you suggest would be acceptable / unacceptable? > > I would consider things to fail if more than 5-10% of data disappears > in any region. At the very least it would be demoralising for anyone > that spent even a few hours working to make OSM data better. > > ...snipped > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
On 14 July 2010 20:59, Richard Weait wrote: > What do you suggest would be acceptable / unacceptable? I would consider things to fail if more than 5-10% of data disappears in any region. At the very least it would be demoralising for anyone that spent even a few hours working to make OSM data better. > - users vote to proceed with license upgrade (or not) based on > published results. This step would be a good exercise in visualising the extent of any loss of data, rather than figures being plucked from the air. If large amounts of data disappear then obviously more work needs to be spent fixing issues as much as possible, rather than trying to rail road dissent into submission. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
Richard Weait wrote: > > Interesting idea. How should this work? Something like?: > > ... steps leading to today > - users indicate ODbL acceptance or not > - summarize user replies: x replies, y accept. > - somebody processes all the results to show data effect > - publish those results > - users vote to proceed with license upgrade (or not) based on > published results. > - upgrade license (or not) based on user vote > Yes, I too think that is a very interesting idea and perhaps the most workable solution to keep as many people as possible happy and ensures that OSM remains a success, without having to go through the incredibly difficult process of defining these thresholds. It also means that people should feel much more confident in trusting the OSMF and LWG with some of the other difficult decisions yet to come (like what counts as derivative), which will hopefully give the LWG the necessary freedom to continue to do a good gob. I understand your suggestion as basically going exactly through the steps that are already planned in the Implementation plan ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan ) in exactly the same way, just that the final stage, the "Done!" stage would be replaced by a vote by the community, once a copy of the new CC-By-SA clean db is avalable. (I would probably suggest the same definition of 66% of active contributors as in the CT for this final vote). "Phase 4 - CC-BY-SA edits no longer accepted" phase would still mean the LWG need to define a critical mass, at which point Phase 4 can enter, but as that would only be temporary and subject to the final vote, I hope it will be much easier to sell this to people who are worried about data loss and convince them to offer their temporary trust. Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Defining-critical-mass-tp5290276p5292084.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > I am simply saying that if you wanted to get involved in the decision > whether or not to ask users how they would licence their contributions, > there was a really simple way to do so: by joining OSMF. That I did, and was disappointed at the failure to get any answers that way either. So I chose not to continue inside OSMF. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
Ulf Lamping wrote: > For example remember positions like Richard Fairhursts in the thread > (I know that it's not an "official" OSMF/LWG position) Of course it isn't. I'm not on the OSMF board let alone LWG; indeed, I actively told OSMF earlier this year that I did not intend to assist it in any way because of my discontent at how the project blog and Twitter feed were being managed. There is no more reason why I should speak for OSMF than for the Venezuelan government, and I have no idea whether or not either OSMF or the Venezuelan government shares any of my views. (I suspect I'm probably closer to the Venezuelans on most issues...) > I have choosen "to get involved in the running of the project" by > mapping a lot of stuff, organising a local regular mapping group, > helping in several german OSM activities and whatnot. Now telling > me to shut up about decisions when I'm not a member of the OSMF > is, well, disgusting IMHO. Hey. Please don't put words into my mouth. I have not used the phrase "shut up". I am simply saying that if you wanted to get involved in the decision whether or not to ask users how they would licence their contributions, there was a really simple way to do so: by joining OSMF. Over at Wikipedia they have a phrase: "Assume good faith". It's a good phrase. Please remember it. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Defining-critical-mass-tp5290276p5292002.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:18 AM, John Smith wrote: > On 14 July 2010 19:08, Andy Allan wrote: >> See also http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes if >> you are interested in seeing what's been involved in the LWG so far. > > How about defining some specific points about what an acceptable loss > of data will be, possibly on a per region basis and if not obtained > what the outcome will be. What do you suggest would be acceptable / unacceptable? > Allow contributors to vote before the change over occurs, not just if > they agree to license their data under ODBL or not... Interesting idea. How should this work? Something like?: ... steps leading to today - users indicate ODbL acceptance or not - summarize user replies: x replies, y accept. - somebody processes all the results to show data effect - publish those results - users vote to proceed with license upgrade (or not) based on published results. - upgrade license (or not) based on user vote Or more simply. Ask users if they are willing to proceed. Calculate and show users the results. Then ask users if that is good enough to make it "official". Is this what you imagine? Is this acceptable to those reading this? What are the details of the "- users vote..." step? Let's talk more about this. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > Ęvar Arnfjörš Bjarmason wrote: >> >> That doesn't just go for the LWG, it seems that a lot of the people >> involved in the OSMF prefer to do things via conference calls. The >> calls aren't recorded and published (that I've seen) > > Recording and making public such conversations would mean that everyone > would have to choose their words carefully in order to minimise the danger > of being quoted out-of-context by people with a limited understanding of > English (wo might, for example, not immediately understand the humour in > certain expressions). It would also discourage straight talk in many cases > (people would say "someone has contacted me about this-and-that" instead of > saying who that someone was, and so on). > > The telephone calls are already, as you say yourself, time-consuming and > thus not for everybody; they are also, if I may add from my tiny little > personal exposure, tedious and not something one likes to do. > > Your suggestions would make the telephone calls even more tedious, more time > consuming, and rob them of the last bit of fun (in the form of a humourous > remark here and there). It would be even harder to find people doing the > work if you expect that from them. I'm not sure I've heard any of the LWG members have any fun whatsoever on their calls! Further to what Frederik has said, there's a couple more points that are important. The OSMF receives legal advice on matters relating to the license change, and as far as I'm aware they are forbidden from making the legal advice public. If I recall correctly there was a problem about a year ago where the legal advice was publicly quoted and it had to be redacted from the mailing lists. Such is the nature of legal advice. I would also expect there to be lots of other confidential matters discussed (such as contacting people external to the project) that again can't be publicly broadcast without heavy editing of any recording. I'm sure the Data Working Group also has similar problems of confidentiality when there are copyright accusations being dealt with - some things just can't be recorded and broadcast publicly. I'm sure if there are specific things from the minutes that you'd like elaboration on, the LWG members will do their best to try to answer your questions. I think the LWG should be applauded for providing such up-to-date minutes for all of their regular meetings, it shows some insight into their dedication to doing things well. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
Am 14.07.2010 11:08, schrieb Andy Allan: On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Ulf Lamping wrote: See what our (IMHO not so) respectful OSMF chairman and project founder Steve C had to say about license (working group) critics in December 2009: http://fakestevec.blogspot.com/2009/12/fable.html That wasn't written by Steve Coast, the "fake" blog is written by other people and is supposed to be satirical, but in this case is clearly attacking other members of the community. One of the characters is clearly based on you. I don't find it very funny or constructive. Steve Coast actually posts at the following blogs: http://www.opengeodata.org/ (with others) http://blog.stevecoast.com/ Deep apologies to Steve C that I accused him about things he didn't do. It's really not my style to falsely accuse people - seems I really got a wrong impression about that blog. I had hoped that after the dust settled a bit the OSMF learned from these discussions, but reading the above legal talk thread I still see the same elitist behaviour from the "inner circle" as before - very sad to see :-( It's a shame that you feel there's an "inner circle". It's worth bearing in mind that when a project grows to be more than 30-40 people that not everyone can be involved in everything all the time (and we have around 30-40 *thousand* people involved now). But there's no intention to create an inner circle or, by corrollary, exclude other people. What could we (you/me/LWG) do to make this more inclusive? For example remember positions like Richard Fairhursts in the thread (I know that it's not an "official" OSMF/LWG position): "Of course, not everyone is a member of OSMF, but if you don't choose to get involved in the running of the project then you can't really complain if decisions are taken that aren't to your liking." I have choosen "to get involved in the running of the project" by mapping a lot of stuff, organising a local regular mapping group, helping in several german OSM activities and whatnot. Now telling me to shut up about decisions when I'm not a member of the OSMF is, well, disgusting IMHO. Remember: There are a lot of active OSM activists around the world that are not OSMF members, a lot of them might not even speak english. Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Andreas Labres wrote: > On 14.07.10 09:59, Ulf Lamping wrote: >> I had hoped that after the dust settled a bit the OSMF learned from these >> discussions, but reading the above legal talk thread I still see the same >> elitist behaviour from the "inner circle" as before - very sad to see :-( > > Sad to have to read that you (as beeing in the LWG) see that the same way I > see it. Just to clarify: Ulf Lamping isn't in the LWG, but Ulf Möller is. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
Hi, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: That doesn't just go for the LWG, it seems that a lot of the people involved in the OSMF prefer to do things via conference calls. The calls aren't recorded and published (that I've seen) Recording and making public such conversations would mean that everyone would have to choose their words carefully in order to minimise the danger of being quoted out-of-context by people with a limited understanding of English (wo might, for example, not immediately understand the humour in certain expressions). It would also discourage straight talk in many cases (people would say "someone has contacted me about this-and-that" instead of saying who that someone was, and so on). The telephone calls are already, as you say yourself, time-consuming and thus not for everybody; they are also, if I may add from my tiny little personal exposure, tedious and not something one likes to do. Your suggestions would make the telephone calls even more tedious, more time consuming, and rob them of the last bit of fun (in the form of a humourous remark here and there). It would be even harder to find people doing the work if you expect that from them. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
Andy Allan wrote: > But there's no > intention to create an inner circle or, by corrollary, exclude other > people. What could we (you/me/LWG) do to make this more inclusive? 1. Define reasonable limits for your future decisions, so people know what to expect. 2. Let active contributors have a say in the really important decisions. That way, people know that it won't be possible for some "inner circle" to act without their consent. A good example for this is the way *future* license changes will be handled according to the Contributor Terms: Besides other requirements, there is a guarantee that licenses will be free and open (-> reasonable limit for future decisions) and that there will be a vote among active contributors. This is actively marketed as a reason for trust.[1] Why don't we apply some of these ideas to the current license change, too? Tobias Knerr [1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License#Can_I_trust_the_OpenStreetMap_Foundation_.3F ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
Am 14.07.2010 12:03, schrieb Andreas Labres: On 14.07.10 09:59, Ulf Lamping wrote: I had hoped that after the dust settled a bit the OSMF learned from these discussions, but reading the above legal talk thread I still see the same elitist behaviour from the "inner circle" as before - very sad to see :-( Sad to have to read that you (as beeing in the LWG) see that the same way I see it. You probably think about Ulf Möller (OSMF) and not me :-) I'm not a member of the OSMF nor the LWG. Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
On 14.07.10 09:59, Ulf Lamping wrote: > A lot of the points in this thread was already discussed by others and me > around 2009. The whole license (change) discussion in 2009 (to my > understanding) boiled down to: Become member of the OSMF or shut up and follow > our judgement. Well, I am an OSMF member and I can't see why that should change anything. The manner things are pressed through (don't know if this is the correct English phrase, I mean "durchdrücken" in German) is not ok. > I had hoped that after the dust settled a bit the OSMF learned from these > discussions, but reading the above legal talk thread I still see the same > elitist behaviour from the "inner circle" as before - very sad to see :-( Sad to have to read that you (as beeing in the LWG) see that the same way I see it. /al ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 09:08, Andy Allan wrote: > But there's no intention to create an inner circle or, by > corrollary, exclude other people. What could we (you/me/LWG) do to > make this more inclusive? > [...] > See also http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes if > you are interested in seeing what's been involved in the LWG so far. There's a lot of data being lost when you publish minutes. Entire discussions are being squeezed into a bullet point or two. It would help if those meetings were also published as podcasts. That doesn't just go for the LWG, it seems that a lot of the people involved in the OSMF prefer to do things via conference calls. The calls aren't recorded and published (that I've seen), so the only people who can be directly involved in them and get the full data (and not just summaries) are those that: * Speak English at the level of being able to participate in a conference call. * Are roughly in the CET timezone. Those conference calls are in the middle of the night in some parts of the globe. * Can commit enough time to the project to do a synchronous conference call weekly. That's a pretty small group compared to e.g. what you could get with a closed but publically archived mailing list. I get that a conference call can be easier than writing E-Mail, but this model of communication for the OSMF is restricting a lot of user participation in what is otherwise an international and multilingular project. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
On 14 July 2010 19:08, Andy Allan wrote: > See also http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes if > you are interested in seeing what's been involved in the LWG so far. How about defining some specific points about what an acceptable loss of data will be, possibly on a per region basis and if not obtained what the outcome will be. Allow contributors to vote before the change over occurs, not just if they agree to license their data under ODBL or not... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Ulf Lamping wrote: > A lot of the points in this thread was already discussed by others and me > around 2009. The whole license (change) discussion in 2009 (to my > understanding) boiled down to: Become member of the OSMF or shut up and > follow our judgement. I doubt anyone involved in the licensing intended that to be the outcome of the discussion. There are certain things (like the legal advice received from the OSMF lawyers) that could be seen as not being up for debate, but membership of the OSMF is only required for a very few specific things like voting to appoint the foundation board. > See what our (IMHO not so) respectful OSMF chairman and project founder > Steve C had to say about license (working group) critics in December 2009: > > http://fakestevec.blogspot.com/2009/12/fable.html That wasn't written by Steve Coast, the "fake" blog is written by other people and is supposed to be satirical, but in this case is clearly attacking other members of the community. One of the characters is clearly based on you. I don't find it very funny or constructive. Steve Coast actually posts at the following blogs: http://www.opengeodata.org/ (with others) http://blog.stevecoast.com/ > I had hoped that after the dust settled a bit the OSMF learned from these > discussions, but reading the above legal talk thread I still see the same > elitist behaviour from the "inner circle" as before - very sad to see :-( It's a shame that you feel there's an "inner circle". It's worth bearing in mind that when a project grows to be more than 30-40 people that not everyone can be involved in everything all the time (and we have around 30-40 *thousand* people involved now). But there's no intention to create an inner circle or, by corrollary, exclude other people. What could we (you/me/LWG) do to make this more inclusive? See also http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes if you are interested in seeing what's been involved in the LWG so far. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
Ulf Lamping wrote: > > See what our (IMHO not so) respectful OSMF chairman and project founder > Steve C had to say about license (working group) critics in December 2009: > > http://fakestevec.blogspot.com/2009/12/fable.html > You are aware that you pointed to a post by _fake_ stevec? I.e. something written specifically to be satirical and not at all by Steve him self? So please don't use quotes from fakesteveC to implicate anything Steve has said because that is simply unfair and not helpful either. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Defining-critical-mass-tp5290276p5291649.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
> Am 14.07.2010 09:59, schrieb Ulf Lamping: > See what our (IMHO not so) respectful OSMF chairman and project founder > Steve C had to say about license (working group) critics in December > 2009: > > http://fakestevec.blogspot.com/2009/12/fable.html Um, I think it is worth pointing out the word "fake" prominently displayed in the title of that blog. Read the other entries and you will see it is intended as satirical, most of it lampooning SteveC. Whilst whoever did write that article may have been wiser not to, it was clearly not SteveC! Cheers davespod ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
On 14 July 2010 17:59, Ulf Lamping wrote: > A lot of the points in this thread was already discussed by others and me > around 2009. The whole license (change) discussion in 2009 (to my > understanding) boiled down to: Become member of the OSMF or shut up and > follow our judgement. As pointed out in that thread, that's a disingenuous argument because it's not possible for everyone interested to become a member. It keeps getting spouted that the contributors are the most important thing to the project, so why are the contributors getting such little real say into the process? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote: > I had hoped that after the dust settled a bit the OSMF learned from these > discussions, but reading the above legal talk thread I still see the same > elitist behaviour from the "inner circle" as before - very sad to see :-( Question to both of you: what are you hoping will happen by making these complaints to this mailing list? I see another 500 post thread starting up with no tangible results. If you have a specific course of action, please continue, but otherwise I suggest letting this thread die now. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
Am 14.07.2010 01:26, schrieb John Smith: There has been a slightly disturbing thread on the legal-talk list about defining critical mass, so far things aren't any closer to being defined and statistics are being abused to suit positions: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-July/003453.html At this stage I'll not be agreeing to ODBL, not because I disagree with the license, but because I disagree with the process being used. Without some better criteria being employed to make the process less subjective and prone to personal bias it will be as 80n put it, a simple wait game until things go their way, I don't think this is the right thing to do, it's a kind of sleazy politicking tactic to achieve an unfavourable result desired by a minority... A lot of the points in this thread was already discussed by others and me around 2009. The whole license (change) discussion in 2009 (to my understanding) boiled down to: Become member of the OSMF or shut up and follow our judgement. See what our (IMHO not so) respectful OSMF chairman and project founder Steve C had to say about license (working group) critics in December 2009: http://fakestevec.blogspot.com/2009/12/fable.html I had hoped that after the dust settled a bit the OSMF learned from these discussions, but reading the above legal talk thread I still see the same elitist behaviour from the "inner circle" as before - very sad to see :-( Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
