Dale, your idea below is not terrible, but it would throw too many
monkey-wrenches into too many workflows.
Really, it seems to me the most correct solution is to declare a
"partial failure at the OSM community to have reached the stated
goal" (of well-licensable data by April 1) and say "the new goal is
to get this done by July 1." Or June 1. Or May 1. Though May 1
seems pretty tight, too. I am just being realistic, and hope that
Powers That Be -- are you reading this? -- are realistic, too,
(rather than idealistic?) for no good reason.
Everything else stays the same, OSM has a little egg on our faces at
not making an INTENDED stated deadline, but we give ourselves three
more months to CONTINUE to improve the community and our data, and
THEN we pull the plug. But we don't lose face fully by saying "we
didn't quite make it, but we will."
This (relatively short reprieve) seems like the happy compromise that
our project needs. Inventing the details of a forked project and new
workflows in less than a week does not. Though I appreciate your
suggestion.
SteveA
California
I'm actually a little surprised that they did not decide to setup a
second DB (other than the need for a second server) and freeze one
DB on the 1st and remove the offending items from the second. One
would be read only for say a month, and continue to provide usable
maps. The second would then be open for editing but not mainstream
use until it is felt the majority of the damage was repaired.
Dale
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
