The GPLv3 public revision process was 18 months in multiple phases, and
it was based on an existing licence. We are trying to analyse a
completely new and untested one and get it to a final version in 1 month.
I don't advocate the N years that the GPLv3 took, but currently the plan
says:
2nd March
* Finalise implementation plan following review of plan comments...
(So the deadline for commenting on the timeline has already passed?
That's too fast on its own.)
12th March
* Working group meeting. Review of community feedback received to
date.
So all significant feedback has to be in within two weeks of the
announcement? This is all far, far too fast.
Remember that:
- Some people don't log into or contribute to OSM every week; they may
not even find out about this for a couple of weeks.
- We need to get input from communities which don't speak English; this
requires things (including the licence) to be translated so they can
comment on it.
As a straw man suggestion for comment, I suggest three months for
comment and discussion, then a revision based on those comments, then
another comment period, perhaps shorter.
We can make sure the existing-people-problem doesn't get worse meantime
by making people creating new accounts agree to dual licensing under
CC-BY-SA and ODbL 1.0.
Gerv
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
