I think Frederick gave you the best answer possible. It's not that the community was *asked* by some overarching committee, but instead that it just floated up. Like a turd in the toilet. Frankly, I never thought it would come to actually deleting data. I always thought that that was OBVIOUSLY so insane that *somebody* would have killed the idea of relicensing.
The trouble is, is that, just as no one person is responsible for creating the idea, no one person has the ability to kill it. Maybe SteveC, but he's convinced that Google is going to steal our data. As if our data had any value once separated from the community that keeps it alive. -russ Ian Dees writes: > Wow, I still have yet to receive a straight answer from anyone and it > doesn't look like I will. The trolls have come out yet again. Sorry for > that. I have been beaten into submission. > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Dermot McNally <derm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 16 April 2011 00:07, Ian Dees <ian.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Thanks for asking me (if this were a vote my answer would be "No", but in > > > the interest of moving on from this nonsense and keeping data flowing > > I'll > > > eventually say "Yes"), but the important part of my question was everyone > > > else -- the community of OpenStreetMap. When were *they* asked? > > > > FWIW I would have favoured earlier specific requests for a vote, but > > it's basically been an impossible position for the LWG from what I can > > see as an outsider. On the one hand, everybody wants to feel consulted > > about the change. On the other, plenty of people have complained > > throughout the process about being offered a half-baked solution. > > Turns out this stuff is complicated. > > > No, it's not complicated. When whoever it was decided that we need to change > license, the *first* thing that should have happened is a communication of > the desire with the community, information about it presented clearly and > thoughtfully, questions responded to in a timely manner, and a vote held by > the active mappers to confirm that yes, this change should be pursued. > > Instead what happened is... none of that. I appreciate the hard work of > those that spent the time to draw up the new license and work with a small > fraction of the community to make decisions on it, but I think they put the > cart before the horse. > > Anyway, I apologize for bringing this up again and degenerating talk@ into a > field of flames. I was hoping to get a straight answer this time. I'll go > unsubscribe from talk (like a lot of others :) ) and click the accept > button. > Wow, I still have yet to receive a straight answer from anyone and it > doesn't look like I will. The trolls have come out yet again. Sorry for > that. I have been beaten into submission.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On > Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Dermot McNally <span dir="ltr"><<a > href="mailto:derm...@gmail.com";>derm...@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br> > <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px > #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im">On 16 April 2011 00:07, Ian > Dees <<a href="mailto:ian.d...@gmail.com";>ian.d...@gmail.com</a>> > wrote:<br> > > <br> > > Thanks for asking me (if this were a vote my answer would be > "No", but in<br> > > the interest of moving on from this nonsense and keeping data flowing > I'll<br> > > eventually say "Yes"), but the important part of my question > was everyone<br> > > else -- the community of OpenStreetMap. When were *they* asked?<br> > <br> > </div>FWIW I would have favoured earlier specific requests for a vote, > but<br> > it's basically been an impossible position for the LWG from what I > can<br> > see as an outsider. On the one hand, everybody wants to feel consulted<br> > about the change. On the other, plenty of people have complained<br> > throughout the process about being offered a half-baked solution.<br> > Turns out this stuff is complicated.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>No, > it's not complicated. When whoever it was decided that we need to change > license, the *first* thing that should have happened is a communication of > the desire with the community, information about it presented clearly and > thoughtfully, questions responded to in a timely manner, and a vote held by > the active mappers to confirm that yes, this change should be pursued.</div> > <div><br></div><div>Instead what happened is... none of that. I appreciate > the hard work of those that spent the time to draw up the new license and > work with a small fraction of the community to make decisions on it, but I > think they put the cart before the horse.</div> > <div><br></div><div>Anyway, I apologize for bringing this up again and > degenerating talk@ into a field of flames. I was hoping to get a straight > answer this time. I'll go unsubscribe from talk (like a lot of others :) > ) and click the accept button.</div> > </div> > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
