Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On 6/21/2011 12:49 AM, SteveC wrote: I only said +1 for a start, Which means I agree with the quoted post. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On 6/18/2011 12:54 PM, Russ Nelson wrote: Erik Johansson writes: The Troll word is used so often around in this community that it's hard to speak about courtesy. That's because SteveC uses it on people who don't agree with him. Can you point to an example where I call someone a troll who was not characterized by the wikipedia definition? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) It's a form of brow-beating. Other people follow his lead. Trolling is posting positions just to get a response, not to seek a resolution. In fact, trolls actively avoid resolution, because they would then have to find another topic to troll about. Perhaps, better than accusing people of trolling (which is arguably itself a method of trolling), is to ask people what problem they are trying to solve with their writing. So, Dermot, why do you keep claiming that people who accept the CT have voted for it? For my part, the problem I'm trying to solve is that I don't want anybody to think that just because I signed onto the relicensing process, that I am in favor of it. I would be happier if suddenly there was an earthquake, and the entire relicensing process disappeared into the ground, never to be seen again. And that is because I disagree with the problem statement of the relicensing. Ain't nobody going to benefit from taking a dead copy of the OSM data away from us. Data is the corpse of action. To misquote from War Games: The only way to win the game is to play it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
Just a comment using the term Troll appears as if it is intended to provoke an emotional response. Surely we should be able to stick to issues and resolve them rather than descend into emotions? Cheerio John On 20 June 2011 11:56, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: On 6/18/2011 12:54 PM, Russ Nelson wrote: Erik Johansson writes: The Troll word is used so often around in this community that it's hard to speak about courtesy. That's because SteveC uses it on people who don't agree with him. Can you point to an example where I call someone a troll who was not characterized by the wikipedia definition? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/** Troll_(Internet) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
Steve Coast wrote: On 6/18/2011 12:54 PM, Russ Nelson wrote: Erik Johansson writes: The Troll word is used so often around in this community that it's hard to speak about courtesy. That's because SteveC uses it on people who don't agree with him. Can you point to an example where I call someone a troll who was not characterized by the wikipedia definition? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2010-October/004601.html I can say for sure that my aim was to get the bicycle=avoid tags removed, and I would presume that Paul's aim was to keep them. Hence neither of us was posting with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Join-the-OSMF-tp6461437p6496731.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
I only said +1 for a start, and that was in a thread where you managed to annoy Richard Weait. That's quite a feat. Steve stevecoast.com On Jun 20, 2011, at 10:43, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: Steve Coast wrote: On 6/18/2011 12:54 PM, Russ Nelson wrote: Erik Johansson writes: The Troll word is used so often around in this community that it's hard to speak about courtesy. That's because SteveC uses it on people who don't agree with him. Can you point to an example where I call someone a troll who was not characterized by the wikipedia definition? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2010-October/004601.html I can say for sure that my aim was to get the bicycle=avoid tags removed, and I would presume that Paul's aim was to keep them. Hence neither of us was posting with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Join-the-OSMF-tp6461437p6496731.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
Dermot McNally writes: In a democracy, a majority decides which way a decision should fall. It's still not a democracy. In our vote It's still not a vote, and calling it a vote instead of a vote doesn't help matters. Not my intention - everybody is free to explain what they meant by yes. My point is, if enough people say yes, it's fair to take them at their word and to proceed with the licence change. It's still not a vote, and you can't claim support for the process. If you want to look at the poll numbers, only 20% are actually in favor of the license change -- the other 80% are either indifferent or actively hostile. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
Erik Johansson writes: The Troll word is used so often around in this community that it's hard to speak about courtesy. That's because SteveC uses it on people who don't agree with him. It's a form of brow-beating. Other people follow his lead. Trolling is posting positions just to get a response, not to seek a resolution. In fact, trolls actively avoid resolution, because they would then have to find another topic to troll about. Perhaps, better than accusing people of trolling (which is arguably itself a method of trolling), is to ask people what problem they are trying to solve with their writing. So, Dermot, why do you keep claiming that people who accept the CT have voted for it? For my part, the problem I'm trying to solve is that I don't want anybody to think that just because I signed onto the relicensing process, that I am in favor of it. I would be happier if suddenly there was an earthquake, and the entire relicensing process disappeared into the ground, never to be seen again. And that is because I disagree with the problem statement of the relicensing. Ain't nobody going to benefit from taking a dead copy of the OSM data away from us. Data is the corpse of action. To misquote from War Games: The only way to win the game is to play it. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
Replying to myself ... I know ... But I was thinking while I was out mowing the lawn. It's NOT necessary for OSM or the OSMF to be a democracy. It's simply necessary to provide an environment where people can contribute to the map and share their contributions with other people. If accomplishing this means sometimes dragging people kicking and screaming, then that's what it means. But don't call it a democracy and don't call seeking accommodation voting or if a majority of accommodation is achieved, call it approval. -russ Russ Nelson writes: Dermot McNally writes: In a democracy, a majority decides which way a decision should fall. It's still not a democracy. In our vote It's still not a vote, and calling it a vote instead of a vote doesn't help matters. Not my intention - everybody is free to explain what they meant by yes. My point is, if enough people say yes, it's fair to take them at their word and to proceed with the licence change. It's still not a vote, and you can't claim support for the process. If you want to look at the poll numbers, only 20% are actually in favor of the license change -- the other 80% are either indifferent or actively hostile. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
Hello Russ, It is very seldom that a democracy will make the best decisions. Winston Churchill said The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. But democracy has real motivational benefits in an information society. In our case, users will be more motivated to keep on maintaining their contributions. Regards, Nic On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 11:13 PM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: Replying to myself ... I know ... But I was thinking while I was out mowing the lawn. It's NOT necessary for OSM or the OSMF to be a democracy. It's simply necessary to provide an environment where people can contribute to the map and share their contributions with other people. If accomplishing this means sometimes dragging people kicking and screaming, then that's what it means. But don't call it a democracy and don't call seeking accommodation voting or if a majority of accommodation is achieved, call it approval. -russ Russ Nelson writes: Dermot McNally writes: In a democracy, a majority decides which way a decision should fall. It's still not a democracy. In our vote It's still not a vote, and calling it a vote instead of a vote doesn't help matters. Not my intention - everybody is free to explain what they meant by yes. My point is, if enough people say yes, it's fair to take them at their word and to proceed with the licence change. It's still not a vote, and you can't claim support for the process. If you want to look at the poll numbers, only 20% are actually in favor of the license change -- the other 80% are either indifferent or actively hostile. -- --my blog is at http://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
That is why OSM is, and will remain, a do-ocracy. My crash course to the issues with different government systems: a) anarchy. Problem: not well fit to a collaborative project b) dictatorship/monarchy. Someone with enough power decides how it works. AFAIK SteveC has empowered OSMF this way. Problem: the word sounds bad, at least unless you are from private sector where boss is god is accepted and normal. c) democracy. Problem: the minority just has to accept power of majority. So they are always unhappy. If they don't, then they are ridiculous, and can be physically executed in extreme cases. Even in most democratic countries. d) do-ocracy. Key problem: it is unstable and uneffective. If in time A someone does something, then in moment B the others will wake up and do something against it, or if you have different groups not agreeing doing same thing, then you end up having a lot of waste of resources. As any doing is right then you cannot really blame either of them. I could start a poll to decide which one to choose, but then I would already pre-assume democracy and would give unfair preference to it. Coming from private sector, I know that option B is the most effective to get things really done, but I'm not sure if it is optimal for OSM. But I can live with do-ocracy as well, even if it really ineffective and can be frustrating. -- JaakL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On Tuesday 14 June 2011 19:28:52 Pieren wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: Just as a factual point: The Contributor Terms were posted to the mailing lists in September 2009 as far as I can see: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-September/002803 .html The concept appears to have been proposed in June 2009: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-June/002528.html Both on the confidential legal-talk list ... This is a perfect example of a process that never involved the average contributors. Pieren I am not and never was subscribed to the legal-talk list. Neverless I was well aware of the existence of the the CT's _before_ the OSMF vote. If one voted in the OSMF vote or even formed an opinion about it at that time without reading the two pro and contra wiki-pages mentioned in the announcement [1], then that is ones own fault, not of the vote, some process or anything else. -- m.v.g., Cartinus [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Data_License/OSMF_Members_Vote/Why_You_Should_Vote_Nooldid=386593 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Data_License/OSMF_Members_Vote/Why_You_Should_Vote_Yesoldid=386630 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
In general i know Henk as a reasonable man, and I know he is in politics in the Netherlands so she should knew better then referencing to this would-be-dictator Pierens Doodle Poll. Read it and you will understand why is some democratic countries revolutions started. This Is what I call blackmail democracy. (the Poll does not even mention the CT) The Poll starts as follows: You are not a member of the OSMF but in February 2010, you will be asked to accept the new Odbl or your account will be closed and all you contributions deleted from the database (or hidden which is the same). If one does not read carefully, one might even conclude that as a result of this poll your account may be closed. Serge Wroclawski wrote about this poll: ...separately by the community by a different community member who had concerned over the first poll. I wonder what the concerns might have been This is a very good example of how democracy should not work. Kadhaffi would do no better. And it makes me fully understand why TimC writes: The community polls were post-hoc rationalizing, window dressing, unofficial and poorly worded. In legitimate democratic votes, the vote occurs BEFORE the decision to implement a plan takes place. It is tacitly acknowledged in that the mechanism in the CTs is different from what previously had happened. But really the past doesn't matter as much as what we do next Gert Gremmen - Openstreetmap.nl (alias: cetest) P Before printing, think about the environment. Van: Henk Hoff [mailto:toffeh...@gmail.com] Verzonden: Monday, June 13, 2011 11:55 PM Aan: Nathan Edgars II CC: talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF ! On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: Serge Wroclawski-2 wrote: Next, about a year later, a vote amongst OSMF membership was taken.This isn't the board, but the entire membership. Since it was a decision that was to effect the direction of the OSMF, this makes sense to me.. This was before my time, but from what I understand it was not a vote on whether to switch to ODbL, but whether to start the process of creating a license and deciding whether we should switch. Before everybody understands things differently. The OSMF-membership vote *was* about moving to the ODbL and the (older version of) CT. Outcome: 98% of voters in favor of the proposed change, 2% against. During the time of the OSMF-membership vote, there was also a vote initiated by the community, which can be seen here: http://doodle.com/feqszqirqqxi4r7w Outcome: 75% would accept the new license, 11% undecided, 14% not (at that time) There has been similar polls by the community during that time with similar results. Both (the vote and the poll) show a large majority in favor of the proposed change. Again: ODbL combined with CT. This was done *before* all the new sign-ups were asked to sign the CT. Based on this outcome of the membership-vote the process to change the license was continued. The polls in the community were no reason to change this decision. Cheers, Henk image001.gif___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 23:54 +0200, Henk Hoff wrote: During the time of the OSMF-membership vote, there was also a vote initiated by the community, which can be seen here: http://doodle.com/feqszqirqqxi4r7w Outcome: 75% would accept the new license, 11% undecided, 14% not (at that time) You say '75% would'. How many of those 75% have made edits using a source that is CC-BY-SA? I think in principle nearly 100% of OSM users support the continuation of OSM as its own entity, but only 2% acknowledge that they cant relicence that which they do not own in the first place. I suspect the numbers are significantly higher. One sample I derived from a small criteria in Australia, showed that nearly 25% of users who agreed to the ODbL and CT have used CC-BY-SA sources (based on their use of the source= tag). I can only imagine this number would increase if I extended this search to look for more than 2 source tags, or looked for other derived data (for example, CC-BY-SA tagged data that is split or joined). This means that even though 99% of people clicked 'accept' (a check in Australia actually shows the figure at closer to 15%), a large portion of that data is dirty and cannot be used in OSM under the new licence, even though the users who contributed it have decided to relicence it. If this situation was reversed and a major project derived data from OSM, and then in the future asked users to accept a new licence, would OSM have a problem with that? If not, why not.. If so, why is there a double standard? David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 8:37 AM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: In general i know Henk as a reasonable man, Thank you and I know he is in politics in the Netherlands Not anymore so she should knew better then referencing to this would-be-dictator Pierens Doodle Poll. Huh? There has been a loud outcry that they haven't been asked. I reference to one of the polls put out by the community (not the Foundation) and I get blamed by naming it? Although I was not responsible for that poll, does not mean it has not happened Read it and you will understand why is some “democratic” countries revolutions started. This Is what I call blackmail democracy. (the Poll does not even mention the CT) The Poll starts as follows: ** ** ** ** *You are not a member of the OSMF but in February 2010, you will be asked to accept the new Odbl or your account will be closed and all you contributions deleted from the database (or hidden which is the same).* * * If one does not read carefully, one might even conclude that as a result of this poll your account may be closed. ** Again, this poll was not put by the Foundation. There was a vote amongst the OSMF membership. That was leading for further steps. The outcome of other polls we were aware of, did not give us a reason to decide different. ** And it makes me fully understand why TimC writes: ** ** The community polls were post-hoc rationalizing, window dressing, unofficial and poorly worded. In legitimate democratic votes, the vote occurs BEFORE the decision to implement a plan takes place. It is tacitly acknowledged in that the mechanism in the CTs is different from what previously had happened. But really the past doesn't matter as much as what we do next I'm not responsible for a poll put out by a community member. So if TimSC qualifies these as post-hoc rationalizing, window dressing, unofficial and poorly worded is more an indication to me that TimSC opposes polls put out by community members. The vote amongst the Foundation members (not being the poll) had also a questionnaire asking about the preference of Foundation members to which elements a future license should comply. Both gave a clear outcome. Cheers, Henk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On 14 June 2011 05:18, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: Nathan was being gracious. You ARE trolling. Stop it. I like to assume good faith on the lists. I have never for a moment doubted the sincerity of your position on the licence change, and I demand the same courtesy from you. It's acceptable for people to draw different conclusions from the same data. In a democracy, a majority decides which way a decision should fall. Very likely many non-Muslims voted against the ban. They were NOT treated differently after the vote. Stop arguing that accepting the license means anything more than accepting the license, Dermot. It doesn't. In particular, I accepted the license because I know that if I do not, then my (rather significant) contributions would be deleted, and I would be banned from further contributions. I can and have accepted the license without approving of it. That too is a reason to accept. Most countries and organisations avoid the kind of micro-democracy that would have avoided the situation we have today in OSM where some people (a minority) complain that they are being asked to vote (or pronounce, decide, choose if you don't want to call it a vote) on the wrong question and that they would prefer to have been asked a different question. Such a micro-democracy would never have managed to agree on a question to ask, and while this might be a useful outcome for those who favour the status quo, that seems to me a lot like one group asserting its will over another not by constituting a majority, but by constituting a loud enough minority (UN Security Council springs to mind here). So instead of a micro-democracy, we have ended up with a central group of people producing the proposal on which ultimately all mappers needed to take a decision. As will be clear, I tend to agree with the thrust of their reasoning and I find that the people involved are honest and have the good of the project at heart. But is it not still unfair that specifically that group got to come up with the proposal? Not at all. And again, I'd like to come back to how democratic governments tend to work. If you look at the role of the OSMF in advancing the licence change initiative, one option is to consider that they were acting in the manner of a government. This might grate if you take the view that you never voted for them. But ultimately, it isn't just governments that get to propose laws. Minority groups in parliaments, right down to single independent members, also get to do so. And in the case of the Bavarian smoking ban, a law change even came from an ad-hoc group of citizens. So the right to propose legislation (or, in this case, a licence change) is not some mysterious one. There is no reason any grouping within the project cannot form to promote a different change - in fact, any group that wishes to do so will find it much easier to do so once the initial change to CT is made because of the 66% majority. But, I (continuously) hear you point out, the OSMF is uniquely well-placed to force through its will because it controls the servers.. This is, of course, true. I can counter with the usual retort that it is everyone's option to fork and that this is the defense against an evil Foundation. You can counter that OSMF will still prevail as it enjoys recognition as the one true fork. And we all go away frowning. Thing is, even an evil foundation would have to consider the sustainability of a post-CT data set. On the one hand, OSMF has the advantage that it could, using the servers and domains it controls, move to ODbL under CT with, say 20% of today's data - technically they are not even subject to any democratic decision of mappers. To return briefly to the issue of legislation sponsored by a government, the cabinet in planning the legislation needs to keep it sufficiently reasonable that it will pass a vote by a majority of the house. Opposition-sponsored bills are harder. They require the same majority and you know that government party can defeat it on a whim. Such a bill needs to be so strong it its merit that even your political rivals will go for it. The Bavarian referendum on the smoking ban is probably closest to our licence change, and even here, a defined majority of the turnout is sufficient to carry the law. In our vote the OSMF had both the theoretical latitude to ignore democracy and operate without a majority, but also the practical constraint that anything less than an overwhelming mandate would screw up the map beyond redemption. This much stronger imperative informed the entire process of licence selection. The process was not a secret and nobody's consent was taken for granted. The eventual proposal is one that failed to please many, for all kinds of reasons. Russ, I've already publicly stated that you did the decent thing by agreeing to the change despite your many difficulties with the process. As far as I'm concerned, barring those mappers who have contributed data incompatible
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
Good arguments and reasoning Dermot, (no irony) Now see how these match with the history of the CT approval process, and you might even change opinion! And to Russ, calling others a troll will transform you into one once! This discussion is of high quality, high level argument based and both sides are to be respected from their perspective. There is no consensus to be expected, but if OSM will not prevail the end you all will (maybe) understand why ! After all, the overwhelming majority that clicked without even reading or considering reading the CT will abandon OSM as quick as a click, for another toy of preference. And those who actually read and object against the CT (besides a possible majority that is in favor for equally qualified reasons) should be considered with more respect, as both groups form the core of this project. To get back to the start of this thread, becoming a member of the OSMF will reinforce the basis of this project. Regardless of the fact that our legal basis will result in CT/ODBL or PD. So again, I want to call everyone reading this to spent a few beers in our favorite hobby (if so!) and assure the future of OSM. Regards, Gert Gremmen -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Dermot McNally [mailto:derm...@gmail.com] Verzonden: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 2:13 PM Aan: Russ Nelson CC: Nathan Edgars II; talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF ! On 14 June 2011 05:18, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: Nathan was being gracious. You ARE trolling. Stop it. I like to assume good faith on the lists. I have never for a moment doubted the sincerity of your position on the licence change, and I demand the same courtesy from you. It's acceptable for people to draw different conclusions from the same data. In a democracy, a majority decides which way a decision should fall. Very likely many non-Muslims voted against the ban. They were NOT treated differently after the vote. Stop arguing that accepting the license means anything more than accepting the license, Dermot. It doesn't. In particular, I accepted the license because I know that if I do not, then my (rather significant) contributions would be deleted, and I would be banned from further contributions. I can and have accepted the license without approving of it. That too is a reason to accept. Most countries and organisations avoid the kind of micro-democracy that would have avoided the situation we have today in OSM where some people (a minority) complain that they are being asked to vote (or pronounce, decide, choose if you don't want to call it a vote) on the wrong question and that they would prefer to have been asked a different question. Such a micro-democracy would never have managed to agree on a question to ask, and while this might be a useful outcome for those who favour the status quo, that seems to me a lot like one group asserting its will over another not by constituting a majority, but by constituting a loud enough minority (UN Security Council springs to mind here). So instead of a micro-democracy, we have ended up with a central group of people producing the proposal on which ultimately all mappers needed to take a decision. As will be clear, I tend to agree with the thrust of their reasoning and I find that the people involved are honest and have the good of the project at heart. But is it not still unfair that specifically that group got to come up with the proposal? Not at all. And again, I'd like to come back to how democratic governments tend to work. If you look at the role of the OSMF in advancing the licence change initiative, one option is to consider that they were acting in the manner of a government. This might grate if you take the view that you never voted for them. But ultimately, it isn't just governments that get to propose laws. Minority groups in parliaments, right down to single independent members, also get to do so. And in the case of the Bavarian smoking ban, a law change even came from an ad-hoc group of citizens. So the right to propose legislation (or, in this case, a licence change) is not some mysterious one. There is no reason any grouping within the project cannot form to promote a different change - in fact, any group that wishes to do so will find it much easier to do so once the initial change to CT is made because of the 66% majority. But, I (continuously) hear you point out, the OSMF is uniquely well-placed to force through its will because it controls the servers.. This is, of course, true. I can counter with the usual retort that it is everyone's option to fork and that this is the defense against an evil Foundation. You can counter that OSMF will still prevail as it enjoys recognition as the one true fork. And we all go away frowning. Thing is, even an evil foundation would have to consider the sustainability of a post-CT data set. On the one hand, OSMF has the advantage that it could, using the servers and domains it controls
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 8:37 AM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen Read it and you will understand why is some “democratic” countries revolutions started. This Is what I call blackmail democracy. (the Poll does not even mention the CT) FYI, the poll was opened the Dec 6, 2009 : in reaction to the license change proposal: http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/3/3c/License_Proposal.pdf published on this announcement: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/announce/2009-December/07.html immediately forwarded on the talk list: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-December/045105.html and the long following thread... Indeed, on the first message sent by Ian Dees, we already see the question: Is this email implying that contributers to OSM who are not members o the OSMF can not vote on the license decision? For your information, Gert Gremmen, at that time, the CT - and even the concept of a CT - did not exist (or at least not publicly). I will not comment the license itself or the results (I never did) but I always said that my preference would have been that the foundation conducted such poll itself. Because the gem of OSM is not the foundation or its members but the contributors and nobody asked their opinion. Because only the admins had the means to make it more seriously - as I stated in my messages - but this poll was better than nothing and showed my frustration about the process. Anyway, once the fraction of the foundation members voted for the change and put the new license obligatory for new contributors, the game was over. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Henk Hoff toffeh...@gmail.com wrote: Outcome: 75% would accept the new license, 11% undecided, 14% not (at that time) There has been similar polls by the community during that time with similar results. Both (the vote and the poll) show a large majority in favor of the proposed change. Again: ODbL combined with CT. Hello Henk, The process has always been described as consisting of at least 2 phases: 1. Asking contributors to relicense and 2. Using the new license, which entails deleting stuff. The vote by OSMF members was to allow the directors to use their discretion in these two phases. The poll only concerned the first phase. It does not tell us if a large majority (was) in favor of the proposed change. To do that you need another poll: Will the benefits of the ODbL license outweigh the deletion of the data ?. Regards, Nic ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: ... Both on the confidential legal-talk list ... This is a perfect example of a process that never involved the average contributors. Nonsense. The separate list for legal discussions was created because legal discussions were drowning general mapping discussions and the community asked that legal discussions be moved to another list. legal-talk is not confidential it is a public list. It is open to join, and is archived. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
Hi, Pieren wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net mailto:rich...@systemed.net wrote: The Contributor Terms were posted to the mailing lists in September 2009 as far as I can see: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-September/002803.html The concept appears to have been proposed in June 2009: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-June/002528.html Both on the confidential legal-talk list ... This is a perfect example of a process that never involved the average contributors. The existence of the legal-talk list, which is and has always been open to subscriptions by anyone, has been mentioned 88 times in postings on the talk list in 2009 alone; sometimes even in the message subject. In multiple messages during 2009 it was made clear that legal-talk is the place to have license discussions. It is therefore safe to assume that someone reading talk and interested in license discussions should have subscribed to legal-talk. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 2011-06-14 19:46, Frederik Ramm skrev: It is therefore safe to assume that someone reading talk and interested in license discussions should have subscribed to legal-talk. It's safe to assume most people will miss anything important until they been told in person three time got ten mails, it's been on the web-site, the wiki, and on the news. All important info have to be stated way to much for most people to see it. Telling there is a legal list and then assuming people interested in license stuff subscribes and finds out about it. Don't work, and all the time you keep sending this is for legal list, obviously shows. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk33qxsACgkQtbR3SXmySrdTUQCeN7jFrIHy8AnQ7FbrHHjDnn/g jQsAoJnXiQzO4RElUqtYTHT6+LJSZgAz =a52W -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On 14 June 2011 14:40, Anders Arnholm and...@arnholm.se wrote: Telling there is a legal list and then assuming people interested in license stuff subscribes and finds out about it. Don't work, and all the time you keep sending this is for legal list, obviously shows. Most of the people discussing this topics being subscribers of the legal list is no random fact. We are there because we care about that area of the project, and that list is the place to discuss it without making regular users to unsubscribe from talk (I guess some of them are seriously thinking about it after receiving ~50 messages only from this thread). All the times Frederik et al. have had to send this is for the legal list messages to Nathan, John, etc., only show how some people do not want to send their LEGAL messages to the LEGAL list. It's not about not understanding that this discussion should take place there but just about not respecting the rest of the community (the ones that do NOT want to receive LEGAL discussion messages). Cheers, Julio Costa Zambelli ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
My silence previously to legal discussions doesn't mean that I like them being on the main mailing list. I also subscribe to the legal list and read it as well. I'm not sure why it is difficult to subscribe to different mailing lists, mine are all filtered into different folders where I can read them depending on my view of their importance. There have been many legal discussions on this list and I think it would be difficult to be subscribed to talk and read it and not see those discussions. I know I would appreciate it if the licensing talk would move back to the legal list. I can't speak for anyone else though. Thank you, -Kate On Jun 14, 2011, at 5:29 PM, Pieren wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Nonsense. The separate list for legal discussions was created because legal discussions were drowning general mapping discussions and the community asked that legal discussions be moved to another list. legal-talk is not confidential it is a public list. It is open to join, and is archived. I'm currently counting 31 mailint lists in openstreetmap.org (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mailing_lists) ! 31 mailing lists without the local lists.!! I subscribed to 7 of them which is probably much more than many of the readers here. How can you expect that every one concerned by the futur of the project subscribed to the legal list ?? What can be more important for the main list if it is not about a license change affecting so much the project itself ? Did you not receive in the past years enough feedbacks from enough different people to understand that you have an issue here ? Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Kate Chapman email: k8chap...@gmail.com U.S. mobile: +1 703 673 8834 Indonesian mobile: +62 82123068370 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 5:30 AM, Matthias Julius li...@julius-net.net wrote: I don't know why some people call it a vote at all. It is a question whether or not *you* agree to a contract (the CT) and allow *your* contributions to be distributed under ODbL. Your answer is not binding to anyone else. And when OSMF has enough agreements from contributors they might decide to switch licenses. A question for a real vote could be Do you think OSM should switch to ODbL? That vote took place three times. It was done first by the OSMF members, then the community at large, and then separately by the community by a different community member who had concerned over the first poll. Check the archives, you'll find references to them. They're several years old now. The poll allowed you to show how much you wanted to didn't want the ODbL, and the results showed you had polar views on both sides, the pro-ODbL people had slightly larger numbers, and you had a vast, vast majority in the middle who don't give a crap about this license issue and want to just map (they voted Don't care.). My frustration at this situation stems from what I perceive as an unwillingness to acknowledge facts by the opposition. This may seem harsh but my frustration here is pretty high. When I do present facts, they're largely glossed over. Anyway, the first the arguments against the ODbL were that it had no community support, that only the OMSF wanted it. It's important to understand why this is an odd critisism in the first place. First, the LWG is an OSMF working group, and I don't believe it requires OSMF membership. The majority of members of the LWG are not on the board. So, the group that took the lead in moving to the ODbL was not made up by a majority board members, nor did it require OSMF membership. Next, about a year later, a vote amongst OSMF membership was taken.This isn't the board, but the entire membership. Since it was a decision that was to effect the direction of the OSMF, this makes sense to me.. Still, shortly thereafter (a couple of months later I believe), the another poll was taken of all OSM members, OSMF or not, and the results were largely the same. This was done on the talk list. Then someone from the community against the ODbL felt the first poll may not have been entirely on the up and up, and made their own. And the results were nearly identical to the first two polls. I am curious what the outcome of that would be. Aggregated from my recollection of all 3 polls, it was that there's about a 22-28% strong support of the ODbL, a 16-20% view against it, and the rest don't care. - Serge ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On 13.06.2011 13:30, Serge Wroclawski wrote: On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 5:30 AM, Matthias Julius li...@julius-net.net wrote: A question for a real vote could be Do you think OSM should switch to ODbL? That vote took place three times. It was done first by the OSMF members, then the community at large, and then separately by the community by a different community member who had concerned over the first poll. Check the archives, you'll find references to them. http://wiki.osm.org/Open_Database_License has two vote results: * the OSMF member vote * a community vote that asks Will you accept the new licence ? A search in my mail archives also found a link to this vote: http://doodle.com/feqszqirqqxi4r7w It's again about Will you accept the new licence ? But where are these two community votes about the best license for OSM (/not/ the mappers' decision about their own contributions) that I keep hearing about? It's entirely possible that I've just forgotten about them and can't find them now among all the wiki pages and threads about the license change. But couldn't you simply post a link to them? -- Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On 13/06/11 12:30, Serge Wroclawski wrote: That vote took place three times. It was done first by the OSMF members, then the community at large, and then separately by the community by a different community member who had concerned over the first poll. Check the archives, you'll find references to them. They're several years old now. The community polls were post-hoc rationalizing, window dressing, unofficial and poorly worded. In legitimate democratic votes, the vote occurs BEFORE the decision to implement a plan takes place. It is tacitly acknowledged in that the mechanism in the CTs is different from what previously had happened. But really the past doesn't matter as much as what we do next. Regards, TimSC ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
Serge Wroclawski-2 wrote: Next, about a year later, a vote amongst OSMF membership was taken.This isn't the board, but the entire membership. Since it was a decision that was to effect the direction of the OSMF, this makes sense to me.. This was before my time, but from what I understand it was not a vote on whether to switch to ODbL, but whether to start the process of creating a license and deciding whether we should switch. Serge Wroclawski-2 wrote: Still, shortly thereafter (a couple of months later I believe), the another poll was taken of all OSM members, OSMF or not, and the results were largely the same. This was done on the talk list. Then someone from the community against the ODbL felt the first poll may not have been entirely on the up and up, and made their own. And the results were nearly identical to the first two polls. I ignored these unofficial polls as meaningless, and probably many others did too (or didn't even know about them, not being on the talk list). Here in Florida when they put a constitutional amendment on the ballot, it has a brief description and a short summary of its effects. Applied to an ODbL vote, this would comprise how the OSMF believes cc-by-sa is flawed and the effect it will have on the contributions of those who do not agree to the change. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Join-the-OSMF-tp6461437p6470068.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
Thats a kind of odd set of statements given... the random polls you're showing around...? Steve stevecoast.com On Jun 13, 2011, at 13:53, TimSC mappingli...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: On 13/06/11 12:30, Serge Wroclawski wrote: That vote took place three times. It was done first by the OSMF members, then the community at large, and then separately by the community by a different community member who had concerned over the first poll. Check the archives, you'll find references to them. They're several years old now. The community polls were post-hoc rationalizing, window dressing, unofficial and poorly worded. In legitimate democratic votes, the vote occurs BEFORE the decision to implement a plan takes place. It is tacitly acknowledged in that the mechanism in the CTs is different from what previously had happened. But really the past doesn't matter as much as what we do next. Regards, TimSC ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote: Serge Wroclawski-2 wrote: Next, about a year later, a vote amongst OSMF membership was taken.This isn't the board, but the entire membership. Since it was a decision that was to effect the direction of the OSMF, this makes sense to me.. This was before my time, but from what I understand it was not a vote on whether to switch to ODbL, but whether to start the process of creating a license and deciding whether we should switch. Before everybody understands things differently. The OSMF-membership vote *was* about moving to the ODbL and the (older version of) CT. Outcome: 98% of voters in favor of the proposed change, 2% against. During the time of the OSMF-membership vote, there was also a vote initiated by the community, which can be seen here: http://doodle.com/feqszqirqqxi4r7w Outcome: 75% would accept the new license, 11% undecided, 14% not (at that time) There has been similar polls by the community during that time with similar results. Both (the vote and the poll) show a large majority in favor of the proposed change. Again: ODbL combined with CT. This was done *before* all the new sign-ups were asked to sign the CT. Based on this outcome of the membership-vote the process to change the license was continued. The polls in the community were no reason to change this decision. Cheers, Henk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On 6/13/2011 5:54 PM, Henk Hoff wrote: On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com mailto:nerou...@gmail.com wrote: Serge Wroclawski-2 wrote: Next, about a year later, a vote amongst OSMF membership was taken.This isn't the board, but the entire membership. Since it was a decision that was to effect the direction of the OSMF, this makes sense to me.. This was before my time, but from what I understand it was not a vote on whether to switch to ODbL, but whether to start the process of creating a license and deciding whether we should switch. Before everybody understands things differently. The OSMF-membership vote *was* about moving to the ODbL and the (older version of) CT. Outcome: 98% of voters in favor of the proposed change, 2% against. Can you link to the vote in the minutes? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
Dermot McNally writes: 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. If a sufficient majority votes yes (and this is often also referred to as supporting the referendum), it is carried. If close to 99% votes yes then it is common to talk of overwhelming support. Will some voters be grumbling that they didn't like how the question was posed? Sure they will. But the result is still binding, because that's how democratic decisions work. Silly Dermot, nobody voted. People who wished their edits to remain, or to continue mapping knowing that their edits will remain, accepted the license -- BECAUSE THEY HAD NO CHOICE. Let me say that again, because this isn't the first time or the first person who has misapprehended the situation: BECAUSE THEY HAD NO CHOICE. Let us not speak of democracy. Let us not speak of the mandate of the masses. Let us speak of a small group of people who control the domain names and servers, and let us point out that their choice means more than the choice of any ten times as many people. Let us not speak of majority rule. Let us speak of rule by the elite. Has it ever been otherwise? If you don't like this posting ... consider that you're probably one of the elite. :P -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
Dermot McNally writes: On 11 June 2011 00:15, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: I think you're being deliberately obtuse Nathan was being gracious. You ARE trolling. Stop it. That's amusing coming from somebody who thinks he can inhibit the use of data he has declared as PD, but let's carry on... Switzerland around the same time held a referendum on whether to ban the building of Minarets. I expect that many Muslims voted against the ban. The referendum was carried. No voters _are_ treated differently after the vote. Very likely many non-Muslims voted against the ban. They were NOT treated differently after the vote. Stop arguing that accepting the license means anything more than accepting the license, Dermot. It doesn't. In particular, I accepted the license because I know that if I do not, then my (rather significant) contributions would be deleted, and I would be banned from further contributions. I can and have accepted the license without approving of it. Please stop trying to put words in my mouth. That's an ugly thing to do. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF ! + PD / CC0 projects
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Brendan Morley morb@beagle.com.au wrote: On 11/06/2011 10:02 AM, Nic Roets wrote: Not at all - I know of no form of democracy that distinguishes between grudging acceptance or evangelical zeal. Dermot, I would quite like to take my data and start my own PD / CC0 project. Nic, Before you go doing that, please consider the fine choices already in play. I have. But if you read my complete email you will see that I don't care too much which open source license is being used. I'm much more worried about the effects of a fork. If we spend time updating a number of forks, it will detract from time that we could have spent mapping. It's much better if we a democratic process and settle the license one and for all. If joining the OSMF is a requirement to vote, then so be it. It's only 25 bucks. Regards, Nic ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF ! + PD / CC0 projects
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote: I'm much more worried about the effects of a fork. If we spend time updating a number of forks, it will detract from time that we could have spent mapping. It's much better if we a democratic process and settle the license one and for all. If joining the OSMF is a requirement to vote, then so be it. It's only 25 bucks. Hi, I think the time building the tools to support forks is worth while. For one, we need the tools to allow people to build and host local maps without asking a committee for permission. Second we need to allow for multiple layers, multiple database and mutiple license in osm, not a single monolithic data structure and server. Tools are needed to allow for better merging and comparison of layers, checking licenses and all that. I see alot of development work as needed to reach this goal. The code is the law, http://www.lessig.org/content/standard/0,1902,4165,00.html and we need to change the code so that these discussions about licensing and all that are less important. Today I have gotten my first version of the renderbotnet server running over ipv6 and you are all welcome to attach a worker process to it.. It is not rendering right now, but the basic connections are running, all without a central server, using ipv6 so you dont need any nat/firewall rules. See my blogpost http://osmopenlayers.blogspot.com/2011/06/get-started-with-renderbot-net.htmland my mail to osmfork http://groups.google.com/group/osm-fork/browse_thread/thread/c623807cd72402a6 We need to get enough CPUs in the renderbotnet connected and then we can use that to share cpus for doing rendering and data processing tasks. Also sharing of edits and chages should be possible using a xmpp chat protocol so that you can either use a modified josm that talks to the botnet or host a local api server that broadcasts your changes on the net. In any case, I see that in the next years we will have a nice solution, and it will be worth the effort. mike ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF ! + PD / CC0 projects
On 12 June 2011 19:29, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote: I'm much more worried about the effects of a fork. If we spend time updating a number of forks, it will detract from time that we could have spent mapping. I was in that frame of thinking 3-6 months ago, but unless something radical occurs in a very short amount of time the damage will be very difficult to over come, each day that passes more long term contributors grow fed up of how the current process has been handled and leave, possibly forever. It's much better if we a democratic process and settle the license one and for all. If joining the OSMF is a requirement to vote, then so be it. It's only 25 bucks. Not only would you have to join, but get a more contributor orientated board elected. Currently it seems at present only companies are being listened to. At this point in time, I doubt the situation can be fixed, or even the effect mitigated since the trust in the current board is completely lacking. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF ! + PD / CC0 projects
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: The code is the law, http://www.lessig.org/content/standard/0,1902,4165,00.html and we need to change the code so that these discussions about licensing and all that are less important. If it was easy, someone would have done it already. Think of how much trouble we already have with once-off imports (Canvec, TIGER, etc). What will happen if the upstream source is dynamic or hostile ? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF ! + PD / CC0 projects
I am not saying it is easy. But if you keep most imports as thier own layers and only merge when trusted, look at how git manages many branches, you pull only from trusted branches. In my module TIGER would be its own layer that would not be merged at all, it would be kept separate. You would want tools to compare layers and mark and remove matching items, but I dont see why we need one monolithic system. A hostile layer would just be kept separate and then deleted. Users would be able to pull together layers and create views as needed. mike On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: The code is the law, http://www.lessig.org/content/standard/0,1902,4165,00.html and we need to change the code so that these discussions about licensing and all that are less important. If it was easy, someone would have done it already. Think of how much trouble we already have with once-off imports (Canvec, TIGER, etc). What will happen if the upstream source is dynamic or hostile ? -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania flossk.org flossal.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
Hi all, I suggest people try to a bit more constructive on this thread. It has gone off topic and contains a few breaches of the etiquette guidelines. The process that got us to where we are but if people have a problem with it, it would be more useful to look to the future IMHO. I am not saying everything in the process was fine. This is tacitly acknowledged by the CTs now having a defined mechanism for license change (regardless of if you agree with the CTs, they still are a clarification). If we don't get more constructive, the mailing lists are just full of noise but no signal, as engineers would call it. TimSC ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
Am 11.06.2011 04:46, schrieb John F. Eldredge: Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: On 11 June 2011 02:13, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: When I signed up in the first place, I was required to say I accept having my data placed under the CC-by-SA license, but, unlike the new license, I was not required to waive my right to have a say in any future license change. You are not waiving your right to have a say with the new CT. You are waiving your right to have a veto. I can't name a single mapper important enough to have one of those. The OSMF is replacing democracy with oligarchy, so that, in the future, no mappers except the tiny fraction who are members of the OSMF will have a say in any future license change, such as changing over to charging for the use of map data. No, we've never had democracy prior to CT. What we've had is a situation where any one mapper may erect a barrier to whatever decision needs to be made. CT replaces this with democracy requiring a 2/3 majority of active mappers. Those mappers do not have to be OSMF members as your comments above suggest. Have you actually read the CT? Dermot Yes, I have read the Contributor Terms. Have you? The contributor terms that were publicly announced included having to agree in advance to any future changes in the licensing, or else have my existing edits removed and be unable to contribute any further edits. This forced agreeing in advance means that we won't be given the chance to vote yes or no in the future. This is democracy only in the sense of the sham elections held in dictatorships. If you try to troll the list, please do so in a less obvious manner. Thanks. -- Dirk-Lüder Deelkar Kreie Bremen - 53.0901°N 8.7868°E Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 2011-06-11 01:49, Dermot McNally skrev: On 11 June 2011 00:15, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: Switzerland around the same time held a referendum on whether to ban the building of Minarets. I expect that many Muslims voted against the ban. The referendum was carried. No voters _are_ treated differently after the vote. No, it's not NO voters, I suspest many cristians voted no as well, all i know in that contry votes no and none are muslims. Analogys always fail, in one way or an other. In your the difference is that in the OSM, vote it was vote yes or leave. A such ultimatum does change how people vote. I think the old licence was better, or at least I think it was, but in the end that issue never been important enough to consider not mapping. There are at the moment no alternatives. Had not OSM existed mapping for a company like Waze probably even been good enough. My goal is a good map and I'm pragmatic about the mapping. Your definition of democracy does not seem to accord with mine. Where did you get it? The vote yes or leave, don't sound fully democratic to me. It's not a vote but a licence acceptance round. I can accept he new law but would probably votes no on a change, Because I think the change make more troubles that it saves us from. With than i can still accept the new terms to work. Voting and accepting a new licence is two differnt things. Can we get back to mapping now? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk3zGugACgkQtbR3SXmySrcTfwCggIgvSEJisRCo9zvb73MfA/BU D+QAnAmWkEzvEGptTkauBn4n1uUGUhGp =SZGY -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On 10 Jun 2011, at 23:01, Nathan Edgars II wrote: You're still conflating two decisions. To continue with your referendum analogy, someone may vote no on construction of a new arts center, yet still patronize it once it's complete. But one cannot 'vote' no on the license change and then continue to edit once the process continues. You're misunderstanding what's going on – no one is voting to change the license or not. You are accepting a license or not. If you are unwilling to contribute under the terms the project needs your data under the project has no use for your data and asks you not to edit.___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On 6/11/2011 4:43 AM, Thomas Davie wrote: On 10 Jun 2011, at 23:01, Nathan Edgars II wrote: You're still conflating two decisions. To continue with your referendum analogy, someone may vote no on construction of a new arts center, yet still patronize it once it's complete. But one cannot 'vote' no on the license change and then continue to edit once the process continues. You're misunderstanding what's going on – no one is voting to change the license or not. You are accepting a license or not. If you are unwilling to contribute under the terms the project needs your data under the project has no use for your data and asks you not to edit. There have been claims that the high percentage of users agreeing to the change represents a vote to change. This is what I am refudiating. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
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? The OSMF only had the purpose to support OSM and suddenly it's now making the decisions? 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. 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. Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
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
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On 11/06/11 12:09, Ben Laenen wrote: 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? The OSMF only had the purpose to support OSM and suddenly it's now making the decisions? 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. 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. Ben I agree but saying this on the mailing list will make no difference at all. We need to discuss HOW we bring about change, and what that change might be. Suggestions: 1) Petition and poll to gather consensus. I create a doodle poll here: http://doodle.com/s2zg64vyaup72dcw Please publicize and vote. 2) Go to the OSMF open session tomorrow. 3) Contact OSMF directly though the committees but preferably not electronically (otherwise you might get ignored). They are actually quite a friendly bunch! 4) Join the OSMF as a member (people keep suggesting this but I don't actually agree!) Regards, TimSC ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
I don't think things are black and white, you speak of rejecting the new license which seems a little strong. I think there are some issues to deal with and some implications. If we are talking about making the basic OSM map based on direction observation, and I think we are, then I think the sooner we remove any imports the better. Otherwise with the new CT saying Oh and we reserve the right to change the license in the future you can't line up the licenses. How useful is OSM without imports, well in the UK if you don't catch buses its probably not too bad. If you do then the imported bus stops are useful. The OSM toolset is very rich as is the community's knowledge. One wonders if the answer is two databases with different licenses? one directly mapped and one that is more geared towards imports. Technically not that difficult to do and it would accommodate rather than 'split' the community. Cheerio John 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? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On 11 June 2011 13:21, TimSC mappingli...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: 4) Join the OSMF as a member (people keep suggesting this but I don't actually agree!) This might be a good point for you to outline how you think important stuff should be organised - how to ensure servers are bought and stay up, how to watch over issues of licence and how decisions should be taken. A difficulty with any status quo is that dissenting opinions tend to be expressed in terms relative to that status quo, which can seem negative. What's the better way? Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
The last few mails on this thread have highlighted a few good points to me. I think that OSM has a problem in that it has no processes for making decisions - we have wiki votes, mailing list 'discussions', IRC, Forums, OSMF committees, OSMF board meetings, plus some 'do whatever you want' views. This leads to endless 'discussions' which go around in circles for a long time but fizzle out rather than reaching a conclusion. The ideal outcome would be that we could have these discussions and reach a consensus that everyone accepts (even if they are not particularly happy with it). In my experience, getting a lot of different people with different views to reach a consensus is very difficult, and it takes leadership - it does not happen by itself. In my day job I look after quite a few decision making processes to help our organisation make difficult decisions. I always say that I will have failed if at the end of the day we have to resort to a vote to decide what to do - I aim for a consensus where I can go around the room and everyone says 'yes' to the proposed solution. This would not happen if you just locked 30 people in a room for a day and waited for them to agree an outcome - we do it by letting everyone have their say, then summarising the pros and cons of each option and looking to agree where the balance between the pros and cons lies to help us choose the correct way forwards. Sometimes we see that the balance is not obvious and we have to go away and do some more work to understand some of the issues, then try again. Mailing list debates do the first part of the process - everyone can have their sayand many do, over and over again What we seem to lack are people prepared to take the lead to bring the discussion to a consensus, by summarising the discussion and taking on the opinions expressed. Probably because some of our 'discussions' get so heated. This is one area where I can see OSMF providing a valuable contribution - to set down the processes by which the community makes decisions - not necessarily making the decision, but helping to manage the process. I would hope that that would reduce the amount of repetitive discussions, and the accusations that OSMF are in some way dictating things to the community. You can imagine different processes for decisions of varying significance to the community (something simple for agreeing how to tag widget XXX, to something more involved for more significant issues where you have a discussion by mailing list, and summarise it with pros and cons on a wiki page etc.). I was hoping to make it to London tomorrow to discuss this, but will not be able to get there unfortunately. Regards Graham. On 11 June 2011 13:52, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: On 11 June 2011 13:21, TimSC mappingli...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: 4) Join the OSMF as a member (people keep suggesting this but I don't actually agree!) This might be a good point for you to outline how you think important stuff should be organised - how to ensure servers are bought and stay up, how to watch over issues of licence and how decisions should be taken. A difficulty with any status quo is that dissenting opinions tend to be expressed in terms relative to that status quo, which can seem negative. What's the better way? Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
Hi, Graham Jones wrote: In my day job I look after quite a few decision making processes to help our organisation make difficult decisions. I always say that I will have failed if at the end of the day we have to resort to a vote to decide what to do That's good. But also remember that in your day job, it is very likely that the people who have to live with a decision in half a year will be more or less the same who have made the discussion, give and take a bit. Whereas in OSM, even if you find an excellent consensus today, you will have to find that consensus again, or at least be ready to re-evaluate, in half a year's time since things have changed so much. This is one area where I can see OSMF providing a valuable contribution - to set down the processes by which the community makes decisions - not necessarily making the decision, but helping to manage the process. Yes. OSMF is not the body that should make decisions for OSM; but OSMF could try and facilitate decision making (or consensus-finding) in the OSM community. Of course, a possible result is that the OSM community is actually happy with what we have now. It has downsides but so has any established decision-making process. You can imagine different processes for decisions of varying significance to the community (something simple for agreeing how to tag widget XXX, Be warned that tagging is a field where consensus has usually not been reached, or sought, in discussions and decision-making processes, and we have often hailed that as a strength of OSM. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
Frederik Ramm wrote: Graham Jones wrote: In my day job I look after quite a few decision making processes to help our organisation make difficult decisions. I always say that I will have failed if at the end of the day we have to resort to a vote to decide what to do That's good. But also remember that in your day job, it is very likely that the people who have to live with a decision in half a year will be more or less the same who have made the discussion, give and take a bit. Indeed. Remember, too, that in your day job, the people who have to _carry_out_ the decision will do so because they're paid to. We don't do that. We can have all the processes we like, but they make no difference if we don't actually have skilled volunteers who are both able and willing to implement the decisions. That is why OSM is, and will remain, a do-ocracy. I'll let you into a secret. The real power in OSM _isn't_ Steve's secret portal in his basement. Nor even Fake Steve's. It's here: http://svn.openstreetmap.org/ [1] cheers Richard [1] well, ok, git too these days ;) -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Join-the-OSMF-tp6461437p6465328.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On 11 June 2011 19:40, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: I'll let you into a secret. The real power in OSM _isn't_ Steve's secret portal in his basement. Nor even Fake Steve's. It's here: http://svn.openstreetmap.org/ [1] Good one :) Regards, Pavithran ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
Richard, Frederik, Thank you for your replies. I will pick up on a couple of points. You are right that in my day job, the people involved are more constant, and yes, those implementing the decisions do get paid for it. This does not mean that you have to adopt a different approach though - we recognise that things may change that means we have to review the decision. In OSM terms this could be a significant contributor leaving the project, or feedback from users that it is not working as expected, so we would re-visit the decision made. Also a lot of potential modifications that we consider need us to use very specialised personnel. The diversion of such 'critical resource' onto a particular project rather than other work is a significant part of the decision making process. The equivalent in OSM would be if there is a good idea, but no-one prepared to implement it, it would significantly affect the balance of pros and cons for that decision! On a more positive way of thinking, the fact that others think something is a good idea might encourage people to step up to implement it? Whether OSM needs processes for making decisions or should be a 'do-ocracy' is interesting. Certainly a 'do-ocracy' is the way it is bound to go for purely technical thingsbecause those who are willing and able to implement the technical aspects are bound to have a very significant say in any technical decisions. However, softer things like tagging and (dare I say it) licence changes are not technical issues so a different approach is necessary. Whether to import data from other sources, or go out and survey is a one where 'do-ocracy' approach gets difficult - a technically capable person could write the programme to do the import, and just do itbut we know that could upset a lot of people, so a different way of deciding what to do is appropriate. [I know the tagging one is contentious - I don't want to start the debate here, but deciding whether to have a process for agreeing tags or not is probably a good candidate for any decision making process we adopt]. Thank you for the very civil replies! Regards Graham. On 11 June 2011 15:10, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Frederik Ramm wrote: Graham Jones wrote: In my day job I look after quite a few decision making processes to help our organisation make difficult decisions. I always say that I will have failed if at the end of the day we have to resort to a vote to decide what to do That's good. But also remember that in your day job, it is very likely that the people who have to live with a decision in half a year will be more or less the same who have made the discussion, give and take a bit. Indeed. Remember, too, that in your day job, the people who have to _carry_out_ the decision will do so because they're paid to. We don't do that. We can have all the processes we like, but they make no difference if we don't actually have skilled volunteers who are both able and willing to implement the decisions. That is why OSM is, and will remain, a do-ocracy. I'll let you into a secret. The real power in OSM _isn't_ Steve's secret portal in his basement. Nor even Fake Steve's. It's here: http://svn.openstreetmap.org/ [1] cheers Richard [1] well, ok, git too these days ;) -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Join-the-OSMF-tp6461437p6465328.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF ! + PD / CC0 projects
On 11/06/2011 10:02 AM, Nic Roets wrote: Not at all - I know of no form of democracy that distinguishes between grudging acceptance or evangelical zeal. Dermot, I would quite like to take my data and start my own PD / CC0 project. Nic, Before you go doing that, please consider the fine choices already in play. For example I am setting up CommonMap which is CC By and CC0 friendly. Have a look at http://commonmap.org/faq - if you like what you see, please contribute in the customary manner (cash, developer time, advocacy, import processing, etc). If that is not your style, enter OSM-Fork into your favourite search engine and you'll come across some other systems in play. Thanks, Brendan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
To all active members of OSM ! I found that only 250 or so OSM contributors out of 250.000 are actually members of OSMF. That is about 0.1 %. Nevertheless it's that 0.1 % that actually decides what will happen with OSM in the close future. The current OSMF members are all very valued contributors with a substantial track record and the best intentions to OSM's future, but they may be taking the wrong steps (IMHO). So as to make sure that your interests in OSM are truly represented by OSMF, I want to call everyone reading this message to once in their life spent a couple of beers (not the free ones) to become a member of OSMF. and make sure OSM remains Free !! To those that think that the current steps in license change may harm OSM, I want to say that joining OSMF is the only way left to influence this in your wanted direction. There are about 400 voters against the CT/ODBL, so if all motivated no-voters become member, that certainly makes a fist. To those who are in favor of the license change and really want to make sure that ODBL will be implemented ASAP, become member of OSMF, or otherwise the NO-voters may take over. Whatever the license result of your membership will be, the money spent is wisely spent as it will contribute to a better future for OSM, but then supported by a higher percentage of the community. Gert Gremmen - Openstreetmap.nl (alias: cetest) P Before printing, think about the environment. image001.gifimage002.gif___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: To all active members of OSM ! I found that only 250 or so OSM contributors out of 250.000 are actually members of OSMF. That is about 0.1 %. Nevertheless it's that 0.1 % that actually decides what will happen with OSM in the close future. The current OSMF members are all very valued contributors with a substantial track record and the best intentions to OSM's future, but they may be taking the wrong steps (IMHO). I'm personally still unsure about what the OSMF actually is supposed to do. When it says that: The OpenStreetMap Foundation is an international not-for-profit organization supporting, but not controlling, the OpenStreetMap Project. then why is it making all the decisions on the new license? Or am I then misunderstanding how the whole process is taking place? Greetings Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On Friday, 10 June 2011, Ben Laenen benlae...@gmail.com wrote: then why is it making all the decisions on the new license? Or am I then misunderstanding how the whole process is taking place? I suggest that you are. We the mappers are making the decisions based on a proposal drawn up at great length by OSMF. And mappers will continue to hold the power over future decisions of this sort. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On 10/06/11 19:18, Ben Laenen wrote: then why is it making all the decisions on the new license? Or am I then misunderstanding how the whole process is taking place? Greetings Ben I was talking to Henk and Oliver of OSMF today* and I think we agree that what ever OSMFs role is, it would be good to have it somewhat clarified and in writing. Their view was that OSMF, apart from growing the community and maintaining infrastructure, OSMF should also be directing the momentum/energy/image of the project to meet OSM goal of creating and providing free geographic data. This includes pushing the license change, controlling use of OSM resources, representing OSM as a point of contact, etc, and this definition of OSMF roughly reflects the current situation IMHO. I argued that OSMF might be better if their role was more limited, but we agree that some collective decision making (by OSMF on the community's behalf) was necessary. On 10/06/11 19:27, Dermot McNally wrote: We the mappers are making the decisions based on a proposal drawn up at great length by OSMF. And mappers will continue to hold the power over future decisions of this sort. At the moment, the real power doesn't lie with the general community (probably). Again, not really defined. There are many gray areas. I suggest if people have opinions, they should contact the OSMF board directly, or go to their Sunday meeting [1]. The more in person you get, I suspect, the more effective is the communication. Posting on the mailing list is likely to get ignored. As I understand it, the role of OSMF is being actively debated internally (and externally, thanks to my sturring the hornets nest [2]). If you must debate this issue by mailing list, perhaps try the strategic mailing list? So the question is: how should the various organs of OSM interact to best achieve the overall goal of OSM? Answers on a post card :) Regards, TimSC [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Board_Meeting_June_2011 [2] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_119fr26kqdz * thanks guys, and Ed Avis too ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Ben Laenen benlae...@gmail.com wrote: The OpenStreetMap Foundation is an international not-for-profit organization supporting, but not controlling, the OpenStreetMap Project. This statement is really wishful thinking on the part of the OSMF. By virtue of the domain name and the trademarks owned by it, the organization do have an extraordinary amount of control over the project. Many people accepted the CTs giving the organization even more control. Look what is happening with the openoffice.org domain. Even when LibreOffice was/is clearly a superior product, openoffice.org still had a tremendous amount of hits and downloads. Another way to interpret the quoted statement is to say that the OSMF will only make changes when there is overwhelming support from the community. This has a number of problems: 1. Deciding not to change something is also a decision. 2. How do they know that there is overwhelming support from the community ? (I don't believe the license change passed this test) and 3. And waiting for the community to get 100% behind a change can take a very long time. If we want to compete with Google Map Maker, we may need to act much faster. In the short term people should either become OSMF members or live with the consequences. In the long term, we could adopt a process where voting does not cost anything. (For example, I recently received a couple of messages from Wikimedia saying that my small number of edits made me eligible to vote in their election). Regards, Nic ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On 10 June 2011 21:38, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote: 2. How do they know that there is overwhelming support from the community ? (I don't believe the license change passed this test) and Close to 99% of mappers who actively voted supported the change. 3. And waiting for the community to get 100% behind a change can take a very long time. If we want to compete with Google Map Maker, we may need to act much faster. Here I agree with you fully. This is why the CT are hugely important to the future of the project. You have declined them. How do you propose that we, as a project, equip ourselves to react quickly in a way that does not require 100% support? In the short term people should either become OSMF members or live with the consequences. In the long term, we could adopt a process where voting does not cost anything. (For example, I recently received a couple of messages from Wikimedia saying that my small number of edits made me eligible to vote in their election). How much did it cost you to cast your no vote? Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On 10/06/11 21:50, Dermot McNally wrote: On 10 June 2011 21:38, Nic Roetsnro...@gmail.com wrote: 2. How do they know that there is overwhelming support from the community ? (I don't believe the license change passed this test) and Close to 99% of mappers who actively voted supported the change. I think you are confusing support the relicense with accept the relicense and that difference is significant. TimSC ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
Thanks. I finally did. -- Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
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. If a sufficient majority votes yes (and this is often also referred to as supporting the referendum), it is carried. If close to 99% votes yes then it is common to talk of overwhelming support. Will some voters be grumbling that they didn't like how the question was posed? Sure they will. But the result is still binding, because that's how democratic decisions work. We attack the principles of democracy at our peril - most of the tried alternatives are quite nasty. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
I'd like to save Nic the trouble of taking issue with my claim below - I've since realised that he reversed his no vote, something that changes very much the character of the point he was making. Sorry Nic, Dermot On 10 June 2011 21:50, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 June 2011 21:38, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote: 3. And waiting for the community to get 100% behind a change can take a very long time. If we want to compete with Google Map Maker, we may need to act much faster. Here I agree with you fully. This is why the CT are hugely important to the future of the project. You have declined them. How do you propose that we, as a project, equip ourselves to react quickly in a way that does not require 100% support? -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
Dermot McNally wrote: On 10 June 2011 22:16, TimSC lt;mappingli...@sheerman-chase.org.ukgt; 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. You're still conflating two decisions. To continue with your referendum analogy, someone may vote no on construction of a new arts center, yet still patronize it once it's complete. But one cannot 'vote' no on the license change and then continue to edit once the process continues. I cannot think of any democratic process where only the 'yes' voters are allowed to participate in the results. Can you? -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Join-the-OSMF-tp6461437p6463910.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On 10/06/2011 22:51, Dermot McNally wrote: We attack the principles of democracy at our peril - most of the tried alternatives are quite nasty. The (sole?) exception being market forces. -- Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On 10/06/11 22:51, Dermot McNally wrote: On 10 June 2011 22:16, TimSCmappingli...@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. An interesting response! :) I think you are using support in a different sense than Nic Roets's original question: How do they know that there is overwhelming support from the community? Care to clarify Nic? TimSC ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On 10 June 2011 23:01, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: I cannot think of any democratic process where only the 'yes' voters are allowed to participate in the results. Can you? About a year ago, Bavaria held a referendum to ban smoking in just about all indoor public places including pubs, restaurants and Beer Tents. Non-smokers were free to vote no, and we must presume that many did. But because the vote was carried they are no longer free to smoke in those places. They are, of course, free to use them without smoking indoors. Just as opponents of the OSM licence change will be free to participate in OSM post-change, just not under their preferred terms. It seems a perfect analogy. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
Dermot McNally wrote: On 10 June 2011 23:01, Nathan Edgars II lt;nerou...@gmail.comgt; wrote: I cannot think of any democratic process where only the 'yes' voters are allowed to participate in the results. Can you? About a year ago, Bavaria held a referendum to ban smoking in just about all indoor public places including pubs, restaurants and Beer Tents. Non-smokers were free to vote no, and we must presume that many did. But because the vote was carried they are no longer free to smoke in those places. They are, of course, free to use them without smoking indoors. Just as opponents of the OSM licence change will be free to participate in OSM post-change, just not under their preferred terms. It seems a perfect analogy. 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. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Join-the-OSMF-tp6461437p6464001.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
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. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
Dermot McNally wrote: On 10 June 2011 23:35, Nathan Edgars II lt;nerou...@gmail.comgt; 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
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On 11 June 2011 00:15, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: I think you're being deliberately obtuse That's amusing coming from somebody who thinks he can inhibit the use of data he has declared as PD, but let's carry on... , 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. Switzerland around the same time held a referendum on whether to ban the building of Minarets. I expect that many Muslims voted against the ban. The referendum was carried. No voters _are_ treated differently after the vote. The vote was democratic by any definition. It happens to be IMO a very dark incident for democracy, but that doesn't take away from the facts. Hence the new license acceptance process is not a democratic vote. Your definition of democracy does not seem to accord with mine. Where did you get it? Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
Not at all - I know of no form of democracy that distinguishes between grudging acceptance or evangelical zeal. Dermot, I would quite like to take my data and start my own PD / CC0 project. So by simply matching my new license to the conditions set by the OSMF, I would be voting yes in your referendum. In this referendum, the OSMF substantially influenced the outcome by declaring beforehand We are changing the license. They refused to register new users who do not vote yes. The emails that was sent out only listed the advantages of the license change. Go and look how an electoral commission operates. Something as simple as the order in which the candidates appear on the ballot can be seen as unfair. -- I am not saying OSMF acted illegally or that the license change is a bad thing. I am merely saying that the OSMF decided on the license change before there was overwhelming support for it from the community. The license change was not driven by the community. It was driven by a few individuals. How else can you explain the dismally low voter turn out when the OSMF members voted on it ? Regards, Nic ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On 6/10/2011 7:49 PM, Dermot McNally wrote: On 11 June 2011 00:15, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote: I think you're being deliberately obtuse That's amusing coming from somebody who thinks he can inhibit the use of data he has declared as PD, but let's carry on... Eh? I don't think I can inhibit the use. I wish to 'vote' no. , 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. Switzerland around the same time held a referendum on whether to ban the building of Minarets. I expect that many Muslims voted against the ban. The referendum was carried. No voters _are_ treated differently after the vote. The vote was democratic by any definition. It happens to be IMO a very dark incident for democracy, but that doesn't take away from the facts. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Nobody is treated differently based on how they voted, in contrast with the OSM license change. Hence the new license acceptance process is not a democratic vote. Your definition of democracy does not seem to accord with mine. Where did you get it? As an example, http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/d0b7f023e8d6d9898025651e004bc0eb?Opendocument #20 States should take measures to guarantee the requirement of the secrecy of the vote during elections... Obviously if there are personal consequences of voting a certain way, the vote cannot be secret. The solution would have been to have two clearly separate questions: Do you think the license should be changed? (link to the pro- and anti- pages on the wiki) Are you willing to relicense your contributions? Both results would be made public, but only the latter would be linked to contributors. In the real world, consequences of voting a certain way are generally present in dictatorships that wish to have faux elections. I'm not saying that the OSMF is holding such a faux vote, but if the license change is treated as a vote that's the only kind of vote it can be compared to. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On Jun 11, 2011, at 1:02, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote: Not at all - I know of no form of democracy that distinguishes between grudging acceptance or evangelical zeal. Dermot, I would quite like to take my data and start my own PD / CC0 project. What is stopping you? So by simply matching my new license to the conditions set by the OSMF, I would be voting yes in your referendum. In this referendum, the OSMF substantially influenced the outcome by declaring beforehand We are changing the license. They refused to register new users who do not vote yes. The emails that was sent out only listed the advantages of the license change. Go and look how an electoral commission operates. Something as simple as the order in which the candidates appear on the ballot can be seen as unfair. -- I am not saying OSMF acted illegally or that the license change is a bad thing. I am merely saying that the OSMF decided on the license change before there was overwhelming support for it from the community. The license change was not driven by the community. It was driven by a few individuals. How else can you explain the dismally low voter turn out when the OSMF members voted on it ? Regards, Nic ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
TimSC mappingli...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: On 10/06/11 21:50, Dermot McNally wrote: On 10 June 2011 21:38, Nic Roetsnro...@gmail.com wrote: 2. How do they know that there is overwhelming support from the community ? (I don't believe the license change passed this test) and Close to 99% of mappers who actively voted supported the change. I think you are confusing support the relicense with accept the relicense and that difference is significant. TimSC True. I clicked the button to accept the license, since this was necessary in order to continue editing, but I don't much care for the license. In particular, I disliked the fact that you had to agree in advance, sight unseen, to any future changes in the license. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On 11 June 2011 01:02, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote: I would quite like to take my data and start my own PD / CC0 project. So by simply matching my new license to the conditions set by the OSMF, I would be voting yes in your referendum. Of course, you are free to do that. So we need to measure OSMF by standards different to those which we would expect from a national government. OSMF can't force you to pay tax and can't divest you of any data you own. Their only leverage is over how or whether you get to use resources that they are managing. And as the managers of those resources they find themselves taking an interest in licence stuff that most of us don't consider all that often. In this referendum, the OSMF substantially influenced the outcome by declaring beforehand We are changing the license. They refused to register new users who do not vote yes. The emails that was sent out only listed the advantages of the license change. Sounds very sneaky the way you portray it. Sins of omission? They should probably have linked to arguments both for and against from the wiki pages outlining the plan. Come to think of it, that's exactly what they did. Odd that you didn't mention it. I am not saying OSMF acted illegally or that the license change is a bad thing. I am merely saying that the OSMF decided on the license change before there was overwhelming support for it from the community. Was The Community ever going to beat a path to the OSMF demanding a licence change? I doubt it. Does that mean that we didn't need one? It does not. Most mappers, and I include myself, are very happy that Somebody Else(tm) runs the servers, scrounges for the funds, made a slippy map work and generally gives us what we need so we can just go out and map. Should the people hosting the data not be at the core of thinking about the legal aspects? It's not like the rest of us were queuing up to have our say. The license change was not driven by the community. It was driven by a few individuals. How else can you explain the dismally low voter turn out when the OSMF members voted on it ? It was driven by the few individuals who took an interest in the matter. They were not secretive about their project, indeed evangelical is the word I would use. For a long time they were met with a large round of indifference, as reflected in the poll turnout you mention. Licences, we discover, are just not sexy. It'll all sort itself out is a common reaction to stuff we find too abstract to care about. It's alright not to care. It's not alright to invent problems that don't exist. So anyway, we've come further in the process. It turns out that in order to find out what people think you have to steal their football and not give it back until they tell you. Democracy might be fair, but it turns out it's pretty boring too. Still, we know now that an overwhelming number of mappers are sufficiently OK with the change. Some aren't, for various reasons. And that's a shame. But those of you who aren't need to consider a few things. You need to realise that you're not the only ones here. You need to realise that there are a _lot_ of smart people contributing to OSM and most of them are OK with this. You need to understand that if you try to use your data as leverage you are typically jeapordising the contributions of lots of your fellow mappers. You need to remember that this change isn't the final roll of the dice. You didn't like the way this change was proposed, promoted, voted upon? Well, the new CTs define in some detail how it has to be done in the future. That's progress. You would have preferred PD/Beerware/CC-BY-stand-on-one-leg? Groovy - just find 2/3 of active mappers who want that too and it can happen without all the accusations of bad faith we've had this time around. In summary - if we were in the business of immediate perfection in OSM nothing would have gone into the map until the whole world was fully surveyed. We do incremental mapping. Learn to attain your licencing goals the same way. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On 11 June 2011 00:53, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: True. I clicked the button to accept the license, since this was necessary in order to continue editing, but I don't much care for the license. In particular, I disliked the fact that you had to agree in advance, sight unseen, to any future changes in the license. Wasn't this a provision of CC-BY-SA too? Why is it only a problem when applied to ODbL? Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: On 11 June 2011 00:53, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: True. I clicked the button to accept the license, since this was necessary in order to continue editing, but I don't much care for the license. In particular, I disliked the fact that you had to agree in advance, sight unseen, to any future changes in the license. Wasn't this a provision of CC-BY-SA too? Why is it only a problem when applied to ODbL? When I signed up in the first place, I was required to say I accept having my data placed under the CC-by-SA license, but, unlike the new license, I was not required to waive my right to have a say in any future license change. The OSMF is replacing democracy with oligarchy, so that, in the future, no mappers except the tiny fraction who are members of the OSMF will have a say in any future license change, such as changing over to charging for the use of map data. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
On 11 June 2011 02:13, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: When I signed up in the first place, I was required to say I accept having my data placed under the CC-by-SA license, but, unlike the new license, I was not required to waive my right to have a say in any future license change. You are not waiving your right to have a say with the new CT. You are waiving your right to have a veto. I can't name a single mapper important enough to have one of those. The OSMF is replacing democracy with oligarchy, so that, in the future, no mappers except the tiny fraction who are members of the OSMF will have a say in any future license change, such as changing over to charging for the use of map data. No, we've never had democracy prior to CT. What we've had is a situation where any one mapper may erect a barrier to whatever decision needs to be made. CT replaces this with democracy requiring a 2/3 majority of active mappers. Those mappers do not have to be OSMF members as your comments above suggest. Have you actually read the CT? Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !
Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: On 11 June 2011 02:13, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: When I signed up in the first place, I was required to say I accept having my data placed under the CC-by-SA license, but, unlike the new license, I was not required to waive my right to have a say in any future license change. You are not waiving your right to have a say with the new CT. You are waiving your right to have a veto. I can't name a single mapper important enough to have one of those. The OSMF is replacing democracy with oligarchy, so that, in the future, no mappers except the tiny fraction who are members of the OSMF will have a say in any future license change, such as changing over to charging for the use of map data. No, we've never had democracy prior to CT. What we've had is a situation where any one mapper may erect a barrier to whatever decision needs to be made. CT replaces this with democracy requiring a 2/3 majority of active mappers. Those mappers do not have to be OSMF members as your comments above suggest. Have you actually read the CT? Dermot Yes, I have read the Contributor Terms. Have you? The contributor terms that were publicly announced included having to agree in advance to any future changes in the licensing, or else have my existing edits removed and be unable to contribute any further edits. This forced agreeing in advance means that we won't be given the chance to vote yes or no in the future. This is democracy only in the sense of the sham elections held in dictatorships. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
