On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:52 AM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010, Gervase Markham wrote:
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
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010, Andy Allan wrote:
After lots of discussions and What if... scenarios we've all come to
the realisation that it's much better to find out what actually
happens, and make decisions based on the results.
I still don't agree with this approach. It doesn't sit with my idea of
Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
I still don't agree with this approach. It doesn't sit with my idea of
democracy. When people vote they need to know for what they
are voting, and what the cut off marks are considered to be.
It's not a vote.
It's a request by the OpenStreetMap Foundation for you
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
I still don't agree with this approach. It doesn't sit with my idea of
democracy. When people vote they need to know for what they
are voting, and what the cut off marks are considered to be.
It's not a vote.
It's a
Hi,
Liz wrote:
And the arrangement was that
whether the licence change went ahead or not
depended on how many people agreed to relicense their data
Firstly, if anyone ever said how many people then that was a mistake,
because the number of people is of little interest, it is the amount of
On 13.07.2010 11:31, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
It's not a vote.
And exactly that is the problem. Mappers didn't have a say in starting
the license change process, and they won't have a way to stop OSMF if
they decide that losing half of the data is acceptable.
It's a request by the
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
I hate to get all meta, but there seems to be a lot more fear of fear of
the ODbL than fear of the ODbL (not to say the latter doesn't exist).
This meta fear is mostly due to the fact that the OSMF and LWG are refusing
to give even the most vague indication of what
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
I still don't agree with this approach. It doesn't sit with my idea of
democracy. When people vote they need to know for what they
are voting, and what the cut off marks are considered to
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 5:49 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Liz wrote:
And the arrangement was that whether the licence change went ahead or not
depended on how many people agreed to relicense their data
Firstly, if anyone ever said how many people then that was a
On 13/07/2010, at 10:47 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
Anybody who can suggest a way to accurately predict the
user numbers and data % and location and the extent where blank spots
might arise should help us to allay these fears. But I think that
there are simply too many variables to predict the
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 1:32 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is there's no time limit either. The process can be allowed to
drag on for another 5 years if necessary.
That's not quite true, and I think you know that. The OSMF isn't
exactly likely to have this phase of the
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com wrote:
This meta fear is mostly due to the fact that the OSMF and LWG are refusing
to give even the most vague indication of what this procedure is going to
look like and what is acceptable or not.
Oh really? They are refusing
Andy Allan wrote:
Oh really? They are refusing to give any vague indication? That's news to
me.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan
Seems pretty detailed to me.
Ok, I'll quote from that document those section that are relevant to the
question at
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com wrote:
this process appears to be defined no further than lets see what happens
and then once we have the results, this criterion will present it self. It
won't! It will still be an n-dimensional decision and be no easier to
Andy Allan wrote:
other than that you can change the criteria to make sure the result
you want emerges at the end rather than based on rational arguments as
you
can now.
That's quite an offensive accusation, and I hope it was aimed at me
rather than the LWG.
It was not aimed at
15 matches
Mail list logo
