Dermot McNally wrote: > > On 10 June 2011 23:35, Nathan Edgars II <nerou...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> It's a flawed analogy, since there were two decisions for smokers: >> whether >> to vote yes or no on the referendum, and (after it passed) whether to >> patronize these places. With OSM there is only one decision; someone who >> 'votes' against the change gets their contributions removed, as if >> someone >> who voted no on the referendum was no longer allowed to visit the pub and >> grab a beer with friends. > > Not at all. It's not a perfect analogy, but it covers perfectly the > future right of the no voters to continue to use the facility. In the > OSM context, this is possible by either accepting the terms and > keeping your previous contributions on the map or (for whatever > reason) standing by the no vote and creating another account. That the > no voter would prefer not to have to do all this is clear, but then > democracy always disappoints somebody. >
I think you're being deliberately obtuse, but I'll continue to assume otherwise. In a democracy, there are no personal consequences for voting either way. One's vote is counted, and *the final tally is the only thing a vote counts for*. If yes voters and no voters are treated differently after the vote, it's not a democratic vote. Hence the new license acceptance process is not a democratic vote. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Join-the-OSMF-tp6461437p6464080.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
