On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 3:41 PM, SteveC <[email protected]> wrote: > Where is all this bitterness and anger coming from 80n? You took everything > I said and twisted it 180 degrees. >
So, really, you agree with me, but I've just twisted it so that it appears that you disagree with me? ;) If I've mis-interpreted what you said then please clarify your meaning. > Gun to your head? > This objection was made by Ulf Lamping in December 2009 [1]. The LWG has failed to address this issue. The LWG is directed by OSMF and, you, the chairman of OSMF have just said " I say the LWG should just push ahead with the plan". The LWG appears to listen to your comments more closely than Ulf's. They have chosen to ignore this issue. [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg24450.html Quashing discussion? > Your attitude is well documented, for example: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg24483.html All I said is maybe we could be nicer to people in the LWG. > What you said was "But, every time they do something, the mailing lists fill up ..." What I thought was maybe there's a reason for that. > > 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:29 PM, SteveC < <[email protected]> > [email protected]> 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 >> >> <http://stevecoast.com>stevecoast.com > > >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
