On 4 Mar 2009, at 03:31, Tom Chance wrote: > > Hi Steve, > > Just to say - thanks for writing out this funny long email.
np > I've been involved with debates over Creative Commons licenses and, > boy, > people love to stick their oar in where it doesn't belong! I also know > Jordan, I had beers with him in Dubrovnik a couple of years ago, > he's a > great guy and very committed to the common good. You're right, we > should > all give him some slack and trust him. I'd say trust isn't even necessary, but the recognition, respect and space deserved. > You're never going to be able to mollify people who want to jump in > during > the last of 15 stages and whinge that they weren't there are stage 1. > You're never going to resolve conflicting interests or help people > understand the legal (as opposed to logical context). Agreed, although we must listen to those people as much as we can > Just keep pointing at all the excellent info on the wiki at every > stage. > Drive it home - hey, we're not at this stage and here is the process & > background info. > > > If you'll permit me to snipe from the sidelines without an offer of > help, > here's a suggestion for the people management. When you set > yourselves up > to have regular meetings, publish minutes, etc. then DO IT. Either > scale > down your ambitions or up your game, but it is very unhealthy to > have the > process break down, especially when the process is the wider > community's > only way of keeping tabs on important questions like licensing. > There is a > lot of bad feeling on the mailing lists so the Foundation needs to > come out > and clear the air, deal with these issues, then people will be more > likely > to understand and accept all your points below. I hear you, but as I think you know from working with volunteers... there are pros and cons. > Then just keep pointing to the web page that outlines the structures, > processes and notes/minutes/FAQs etc. > > Best of luck to you, Jordan and everyone else. > > Regards, > Tom > > > > On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 20:28:32 -0800, SteveC <st...@asklater.com> wrote: >> Where to begin? >> >> Why don't we start with the beautiful community we've built and the >> stunning map can be the backdrop. On this canvas lets spread the >> pieces of the puzzle and see if we can put a few things together. >> >> We have incredible coders. We have mappers that stay up all night >> adding lakes in Bolivia from aerial imagery. We have people building >> community across mailing lists, forums and mapping events. We have >> user interaction people. We have stunning cartography from the >> planets >> best cartographers. We have a sysadmin team second to none. We have a >> volunteer board doing their best with the tools they have. We have >> fake bloggers so involved in their espionage they fake their own >> retirement and write in a different tone so you don't think it's >> them. >> >> But, we don't have a shed load of intellectual property lawyers with >> aeons of experience. >> >> Now that's important. Laws and licenses tend not to be written by >> sysadmins. Or Cartographers. Or even expert C++ coders. >> >> We're a funny bunch, us hackers. We can deconstruct a problem and >> code >> around it. We can avoid logic traps. Every day we decompose >> algorithms >> and we have no hierarchy other than our code. Is your code better? >> Then you're better. Am I a better coder if I have a degree in >> computer >> science? Probably not actually. But if I have 10 years hacking on >> Apache or something... then I have a flag to fly. And the wonderful >> thing about our skill as coders is that it applies to a lot of other >> area. We can make electronics if we want. Many of us know quite a bit >> about Physics or Chemistry. We know that coding is basically >> mathematics [5] so we tend to be good at that too. >> >> That logic and intuition we learn as coders is just incredibly >> powerful. We're like wizards with the secret spell and often the >> world >> lays as an open book to us, and we need not turn the page to know the >> ending of a story. Because we figured it out two equations ago. Or >> it's just like that other coding problem we worked on a few weeks >> ago. >> Or actually, it's like cantors diagonal slash[6] and we can use that. >> Maybe if we treat the engine as if it were a misbehaving piece of >> code[4] we can figure out the issue just by being scientific. >> >> And that's amazing. It's stunning. It's jaw-dropping. We see the >> world >> a different way, and we build incredible things like wikipedia, or >> GNU/ >> Linux. Or we hack together a windscreen wiper which pauses between >> wipes [8]. Or a vacuum cleaner that needs no bags [7]. >> >> All that incredible skill very often, sadly, counts for nothing when >> we want to become managers. Or write licenses. Or diagnose our own >> illnesses. Or fall in love. All that logic and training doesn't help. >> >> And we really, really don't like that. We don't like to talk about it >> either. >> >> It's an Outside Context Problem [1]. It's the boundary of our world. >> It's Godel, Escher, Bach[2]. It's the knowing that there is something >> outside of our System of the World[3]. We can't use C++ to manage >> people. We can't use logic to fight with a 2 year old having a >> tantrum. We can't use the scientific method when having an argument >> with our girlfriend, or boyfriend. >> >> And I'm going to have to disagree with many of you respectfully that >> all your coding, or writing, or mapping experience makes you a >> qualified lawyer. Why? Not because you don't have a degree in law. >> Let >> me say that again - I don't disagree with you because of your >> qualifications... just like I wouldn't disagree with you over a >> coding >> or logic problem if you don't have a degree from MIT or Cambridge. >> Law >> is about three things (at least in the societies I've lived in). One >> of them you can nail. You can nuke it from orbit. You will win like >> some vast chess match. The bit you can win is the logic. >> >> The logic of law, of licenses, of contracts... that is trivial. If >> the >> contract says pay peter £100 or $10 or €1 if he paints your bike shed > >> blue then your logic will pay him. If there is a get out clause >> buried >> under mounds of legalese you can find it. You will exploit it. You >> will win like a champ. I have utterly no doubt. I've used it. I've >> sued people and I've won. And they deserved it. >> >> But what you don't have with all your power and logic is a >> understanding of case law. This would be pillar two in Steve's >> Understanding Of Law. This is where it all falls apart. Because where >> all that logic breaks like the crumple zone on a Ford Escort >> hitting a >> tree, is the real world. Logic dictates we should lock up 12 year old >> girls for infringing the copyright of Michael Jackson. Logic dictates >> we should lock up terror suspects without trial. Logic dictates >> breaking a copyright protection mechanism is a criminal offence. >> >> And that's all a bit crazy. >> >> Because here's where logic meets opinion. And that opinion is >> called... case law. >> >> Case law says, lets not bring the same thing to court lots of times. >> That's expensive and dull. So if this case here, lets call it A is >> like that case over there... B. And A was decided like this... and A >> is really like B... then B should be decided similarly to save a lot >> of time, effort, hassle, money, dullness. >> >> It turns out that if you watch movies about the cool lawyer saving >> the >> day they often spent 3 years looking at obscure case law from 1834 >> [9]. They use this to show the case is like that other case over >> there... and win. >> >> So why is it so hard and expensive to become a lawyer and why do they >> think they are so cool? Because they have a magic power and they are >> wizards just like you, but their power reins over a different domain. >> Sometimes you may clash and sometimes you may win. In general though, >> you are better at debugging than they are and they don't know >> anything >> about gcc compiler options. In turn.. .you don't have an in depth >> knowledge of intellectual property law or that case that was just >> decided last week by the supreme court. >> >> They, the legal guys, will read things like "s/foo/bar" and think >> it's >> s divided by foo, divided by bar. You may read "Without >> prejudice" [10] and think "great now we can have a conversation and >> not worry about the threats". >> >> All their power and majesty counts for nothing in our world. And all >> of ours for nothing in theirs. >> >> But it's not like we're not motivated right? We have money, we have >> time, and we have some of the smartest people on the planet and we >> can >> defend ourselves with dignity and grace as the pirate bay folks are >> doing right now. And we can attack when we want. But often we join up >> with lawyers who are really secret coders. They're pretty bad coders. >> But they give us some help and we give them interesting dwarves to >> slay and some street cred that they're friends have powers in another >> dimension to theirs. So on occasion, we help each other. >> >> This is one of those occasions. >> >> We have two of the most capable legal guys on the planet in this >> domain trying to help us. They want us to win. They want to see us >> take off and not fly on vapour. >> >> But what do we do? >> >> We blame Steve because he's evil. We blame the process because it >> took >> too long. We blame the working group for not being quicker. We figure >> the foundation must be culpable. We write long rants about how it's a >> dire emergency... >> >> But pause for a second. >> >> Close your eyes, take a deep breath. Open them and look around. Oh... >> there's that massive community we've built. Look over there, it's an >> amazing map we've built from a blank canvas in to the most stunning, >> best, most fantastic map on the planet. Birds are singing. Honestly. >> An angelic choir descends and something akin to the ITO! animation >> explodes and dances in front of you, completing a map of the world >> for >> free in front of your eyes. For *free*. For __FREE__. >> >> Now lets turn to the board and the working group. They're >> volunteers.. >> but they haven't been doing their job! They've been slow! It took >> them >> so, so *so* long to get things done... But hold on nobody has been >> saying they could have done better... oh and we don't see any offers >> of help.. or offers to be on the group. Because it's a bit easier to >> stand on the sidelines and we like it here. But lets just question >> them, their reputations and priorities anyway... after all they >> deserve it for volunteering. >> >> Oh... hang on a minute most of the delay was actually due to >> consultation between lawyers in the other dimension. The other land >> where it's ok to take time to review legal processes in a quiet, >> informal, slow and deliberate way. Like how it's done by actual >> 'real' >> lawyers in actual 'real' legal firms. >> >> But! Hold on! We should see every draft of the license! Every time >> they add a comma, or review something! Every sentence! You're taking >> away our rights you evil volunteers! >> >> Yes we should in the same way that a lawyer should comment on your C >> ++ >> or ruby code after every 20 characters. They should comment on your >> mistakes, your lack of foresight. They should publish widely. They >> should blame you when it doesn't compile because you left off a semi- >> colon. If a function is half written, so be it! Release it anyway. >> But >> we don't tend to do things like that, do we? We do things like >> release >> the code by doing a subversion checkin... when we're reasonably happy >> with the code we've done. >> >> Ladies and gentlemen you just saw a subversion checkin of the >> license. >> >> Now you can blame me for being sometimes a little overzealous for >> allowing them the privacy and time to complete their work.. but I >> have >> a lot of respect for them and a lot of time for them. I believe by >> showing that we understood them. That I knew what I did not know. >> That >> I knew I wasn't a lawyer. That we weren't going to slap them with 300 >> emails on every release... that we built something better. You can >> disagree with me. You can point to the projects you've built with >> 100,000 people in them. You can point to your legal buddies who are >> better than mine... but that was the decision I (and by the way the >> license team and the board) went with. >> >> Lets look at the other reason we did that. On any objective measure, >> legal time is worth more than my time. The last time I had to sue >> someone because the infringed my copyrights the guy was charging £250 >> an hour. An hour! Insane! So every hour they spend looking at your >> comments is an hour not making the license better with the peer >> review >> from another lawyer. Or making £250. And they're doing this for us >> for >> free. >> >> If you were paid £250 an hour and worked for free for someone on the >> side... would you like to work on the Space Shuttle or a bicycle? >> Because what you're asking them to do is work on your bicycle because >> it doesn't have rocket engines. You don't understand enough about >> bicycles to know they traditionally don't have rockets attached and >> so >> you take up a lot of their time arguing about rockets... and not >> about >> your flat tyre. >> >> They're far too polite to say this of course. >> >> But, and you know this, we listened anyway. We worked hard to build a >> home around the license. Somewhere to vent your frustrations. We >> built >> another comment period in. Again. Jordan will take a look at your >> rocket plans and space lasers. he will take a lot of time and distil >> it down in to a puncture repair kit. And you know what the license >> will be better for it. And he'll thank you for it. And we will all be >> better off. >> >> So lets concentrate on that. Lets build a better process. Lets >> build a >> consensus. Lets understand that they know more about law than we do >> and act in a humble and respectful way. Lets help and become a >> volunteer. Lets put all these good ideas in to a plan. And lets build >> a better project. >> >> Notes >> ===== >> >> * I'm well aware that the above doesn't cover every single issue >> raised like whether you have a crack team of intellectual property >> lawyers ready to spring in to action, or you're not a coder. The >> above >> was a vast set of metaphors, taking it literally implies you're not >> cognizant of that. Re-read the stuff about logic not applying totally >> to love, management, law, war and so on ad infinitum. >> >> * Stop thinking that CCBYSA applies to OSM. It doesn't very well at >> all. Richard Fairhurst can tell you the 3.29 billion reasons why >> >> * Stop thinking Steve is Evil and out to own the license. If you >> spent >> more than 34 seconds thinking about it you'd realise that the best >> possible route for him would be Public Domain so he could do whatever >> he wanted. Really. Think about it. In fact I truly believe viral is >> better for the health of this project and I've fought hard against my >> own self interest on this. >> >> * Why hasn't Steve responded in 3 days and rah rah rah. Because I'm >> taking time to digest all your comments and it takes time because >> there are so many, there are repeats and there is the personal stuff >> to distil out. >> >> Best >> >> Steve >> >> [1] see iain m banks >> [2] see hofstadter >> [3] see neal stephenson >> [4] see the zen of motorcycle maintenance >> [5] see turing or danny hillis or the diamond age >> [6] its really scary, see GEB >> [7] see dyson and his book >> [8] see flash of genius >> [9] see good will hunting >> [10] you really, really need to look that up if you don't know what >> it >> means >> _______________________________________________ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk Best Steve _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
