On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Ben Laenen <benlae...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dermot McNally wrote: >> On 10 June 2011 22:16, TimSC <mappingli...@sheerman-chase.org.uk> wrote: >> > I think you are confusing "support the relicense" with "accept the >> > relicense" and that difference is significant. >> >> Not at all - I know of no form of democracy that distinguishes between >> grudging acceptance or evangelical zeal. In particular, in direct >> democracy such as a referendum, small groups always design the >> question that will be put to the electorate, tuning it as required so >> it will command the support of a sufficient majority while still >> achieving the goal. > > OK, so the thread went into a different direction along the way, but above is > what my question originally was: what gave OSMF the power to be this small > group in the first place?
Isn't this like asking "What gave the FSF the 'power' over software?" or "What gave Wikipedia the 'power' over an information?". The OSMF is the steward of the OSM data. That's its core mandate. And thus when the CC-BY-SA license was found to have some concerning implications, the organization charged with stewardship investigated and took action. > The OSMF only had the purpose to support OSM and suddenly it's now making the > decisions? By decision, you mean took, in my 2 year recollection, at least 4 separate polls and votes, right? By decision, you mean asked the the community for their view not once, but once by OSMF, once by the community at large, twice in informal polls, and then in the current vote. They must be mad with power to ask for the community to vote again, and again, and again! > If the OSMF really wants to be the governing power, and the OSM communitity > agrees to give them this power (by vote...), then fine, but please state so > beforehand so we could actually have participated in it if we wanted to. Look at the votes. There's not been a widespread vote that showed anything >20% for those against the license. There's about 20-30% of people who support it, and then a large group who don't care, who just want to get back to mapping. I know all too well what not winning your election in a democracy means. I've lived in the US all my life, and I can tell you that not once has the candidate I voted for ever won presidential office. If you search the archives, I've argued the details of the license and CT at length. I'm done with that now- now I just want the people who didn't agree to take a hard look at the project, and the people involved, and ask themselves if they feel stronger about the politics than they do about the project. If they don't; if they love OSM, then they will just have to accept this decision, even if they don't agree with it. On the other hand, if they feel they can't accept it, they can't move on, then I think they should work with one of the OSM competitors. There are several to choose from. We welcome everyone, but no one is holding a gun to your head to stay. But right now a tiny, tiny fraction of the community is making this list and other communication intolerable through so much noise. I just want a community whose focus is getting back to basics and working on the map. When can I go on the mailing lists and not have to read complaints from the .02% of OSMers who reject like the license? > But since the OSMF had (and still has) no mandate at all, they have just as > much power to make decisions on OSM as any other mapper. All power is given. So when people agree to sign up to the project, or agree to the CT, they're giving to OSMF this power. I for one am glad that we have an organization in a stewardship role. - Serge _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
