On 15 July 2010 04:56, Richard Weait <rich...@weait.com> wrote: > [I re-added attribution for John Smith that appears to have been > dropped during context trimming.]
Pretty sure Kai was responsible for this sentiment on the legal list thread. > Right, the contributor terms state 2/3 of active contributors and a > minimum of three weeks for the vote. Would an additional three-week > or longer voting period, added to the process now be a problem? 3 weeks v the possibility of failure because people are concerned about the result if they agree to the change? > Limiting a hypothetical (what should it be called? referendum?) to > just active contributors might exclude some who have just agreed to > the license upgrade. Is this the right thing to do? Should the > hypothetical referendum(?) be open to any person who responded to the > license upgrade question? Or to any person with an OSM account? If we are splitting out agreement with the new license with a vote to change over to the license then it should be any active contributors since they technically agreed to cc-by-sa as well at present. > What role should a hypothetical referendum take? Should the > referendum be added as 5) so that LWG or OSMF Board might decide to > not proceed? Or should a referendum _replace_ 3) and 4), and any poll > result should be presented to the wider community? I'm not sure if adding this between 3 or 4, or adding it as 5 makes much difference. > And for those critical of the process to date, would this address your > concerns and if not, what would address your concerns? It would help a lot more than the current situation of what-ifs and guessing what the fall out would be, this way we would know exactly what will be lost if the license change went ahead. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
