On 19 Apr 2011, at 11:09, David Groom wrote:
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Davie" <tom.da...@gmail.com>
>>
>> On 19 Apr 2011, at 09:41, David Groom wrote:
>>> It's not valid to count people who haven't voted in the "YES" statistics.
>>> Its valid to say all the people who have never edited would automatically
>>> have agreed to the CT's, any more than it is valid to say that all the
>>> people who have never edited would not have agreed to the CT's.
>>
>> But again – it's not a matter of voting yes, it's a matter of agreeing to
>
> Note, I did not use the word "vote".
"It's not valid to count people who haven't voted in the "YES"
statistics."[David Groom]
Pretty sure you did.
>> contribute under a license. There's no voting going on here, just a bunch
>> of people letting OSM use their changes after the switch, and a bunch not
>> letting them. No one is "counting the 70% in the yes vote" – instead, they
>> are saying "this 70% have no impact on us changing to the new license
>> because no data will be deleted if we simply dump these users".
>
> In your earlier email you said "It is entirely valid for the camp that wants
> to move to the ODbL sooner rather than later to count the 70% in their
> stats". I'm glad you are now not proposing this should happen
Absolutely I am – the stats are counting the number of people who we will not
lose data from in the transition. We will not lose any data from these people
whether they agree or not, so they're safe and should be counted in the stats.
>>> Nor is it valid to simply switch these people over to the new CT's without
>>> incident. OK, don't let these people edit without agreeing to the new
>>> CT's, but to simply switch their accounts to the new CT's on the assumption
>>> they would agree, and it doesn't affect ant data currently in the OSM
>>> database, is not right.
>>
>> No one is proposing switching them to the new CTs –
>
> In an earlier post it was written "which is ignoring the 70% or so of all of
> those people who never
> edited and can be switched over without incident." I took this to mean that
> someone was suggesting they could be switched to the new CT's.
My appologies, maybe they, or I have misunderstood. I would agree entirely
that it would be invalid to decide that these people have agreed to the new
license without letting them ever tick a box. It would however not be invalid
simply to block their account and force them to agree, and it would be of no
detriment to the project.
Bob
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
