Where is all this bitterness and anger coming from 80n? You took everything I said and twisted it 180 degrees. Gun to your head? I'm not even on the LWG. Quashing discussion? All I said is maybe we could be nicer to people in the LWG.
There are a hundred ways you could contribute meaningfully to this and yet you pick bitter dissent. That's not the 80n I remember, where's it coming from? Steve stevecoast.com On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:17 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:29 PM, SteveC <st...@asklater.com> wrote: > > On Jul 17, 2010, at 12:06 PM, 80n wrote: > > In other words, we were wrong, we chose the wrong license out of ignorance. > > Shit happens. > > > > Yeah, shit happens, OSM becomes outrageously successful and nobody abuses > > the spirit of the license. What kind of shit is that? > > People abuse it all the time, cf Nike and many others. > > I'm not surprised it's low level anyway right now, the amount of abuse will > be a function of the completeness of the data. We're not really a routable > dataset just yet and most of the planet is missing address data. As we > approach these points fast, the amount of abuse will go up with it. > > And how will ODbL stop that? Nike hasn't taken any notice of CC-BY-SA and > presumably wouldn't have taken any notice of ODbL either. I suppose you > could argue that what they did would be permitted under ODbL, but that's a > slightly different argument. Your point was that the ODbL would somehow stop > license abuse. > > > Anyway. Let me make two points: > > My take on the idea of having a vote on whether we'd theoretically move to > the ODbL so long as everyone else does... is that it's basically just a vote > on whether to have a vote. It's also without any consequences. > > The consequences part: Because nothing will really happen either way if the > majority of this proposed step vote yes or no, that means that the incentives > to vote yes or no are vastly different than saying yes or no to the actual > license change. That means that people will vote differently and perhaps to > the extent that it will be uncorrelated with an actual license change > decision. In other words, your reasons for voting yes or no 'theoretically' > are very different to voting yes or no in actuality. If anyone here has a > degree in economics or psychology they'd be able to wave around all kinds of > textbooks showing how hard it is to measure things like this when you have no > real incentives - for example asking people if they'd pay for and go to a gym > to get fit - we all know people say they'd like to do those things and never > do. > > Indeed. That is the whole point of having such a vote. It allows people to > express an unbiased view rather than being presented with an ultimatum. It's > long been a criticism that the license change proposal is a gun to head. The > LWG has chosen not to take any notice of that. No wonder there's an outcry > at each step in the process. Please, put the gun away. > > > Based on the theoretical vote being wildly inaccurate and also not really > affecting anything, I say the LWG should just push ahead with the plan. > > You're the one with the gun. What you say goes. > > > If everyone catastrophically says 'no' to the ODbL (which I doubt, but hey) > then they can go back to the drawing board with a concrete result. If we all > agree, then we can just get on with mapping. But going back to the drawing > board with a proxy to a vote - a vote on whether to have a vote - is > incredibly flimsy and will just pull out everyone on the other side of the > argument who'll charge that it was an invalid vote. > > In sum, having a vote on whether to have a vote just slows us all down for no > particular reason. > > Therefore, just put the voluntary license change thing out there (so people > can change if they want to) and continue with the rest of the plan. If it > turns out to be awful and we lost lots of people (which I doubt) then you can > consider things at that stage. > > Oh and by the way, as a thought experiment - if 50% of people drop out due to > the license change then you only have to wait a few months for the data to be > put back in by other new people - go and look at the user growth and data > growth graphs. It's really not as bad as it looks, even under a bad scenario > like 50%. > > > > My second point - have a think on what affect you're all having on the people > in the LWG. They've now been working on this for _years_ meeting every week. > That's a huge amount of effort and investment. These are good people doing > their best to find a way forward. But, every time they do something, the > mailing lists fill up ... > > This is clearly a symptom of the problem. Perhaps they aren't doing the > right thing or not doing it in the right way. Are we supposed to go along > with what they say just because they've been working very hard on it. They > should at least be trying to work on the right thing. > > with new things they should do which leads to a steady state - they complete > one task and then are given a new one to do without actually approaching the > goal. They have to balance this with a fair number of people complaining that > it's taking them forever to get anywhere. That's not a fun situation to be > in. For years. > > Very few of us here with all these opinions and time on the mailing list - > whether they are good, bad or ugly opinions - have the time, whatever our > position for or against the license etc, to sit through this stuff week after > week in the working group and push this stuff forward. > > Are you saying that contributors don't have the right to express their > opinions, and that they should shut up? That's what it sounds like. > > > I'm worried that we're going to burn the guys on the LWG out. They must feel > like they're in some kafka-esque dialogue with no upside for them. > > They chose to be on the working group and do all this work of course, but the > worst thing that could happen is that they conclude that it will take another > couple of years to get anywhere and decide to go and do something more useful > with their time. I know for a fact that some of them don't even read some of > these mailing lists anymore because of it. So why don't we just cool off a > bit and give them a nod of thanks before diving on with this stuff - whatever > direction it goes in. > > Steve > > stevecoast.com >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
