On 14 December 2010 14:08, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: > > Right, well, I thought someone was going to respond with "of course > it's not 2/3 of all active contributors", so you've certainly > confirmed to me that this is unclear, as in can be interpreted by > non-lawyers in differing ways.
I'm afraid I'm not a "non-lawyer" so I can't add any more data points for that analysis. The meaning of words in a contract is a question of fact though. > > That wouldn't make it any more clear to me. Removing the "majority > vote" part would, though. Ah, I see what is causing you confusion. "2/3 of active contributors" would allow consent to be sought in any (unspecified form) rather than necessarily having something that would naturally be described as a "vote" and that would simplify the requirements OSMF would have to meet. > > On the other hand, the response by Frederik points out another > ambiguity - what it means to "respond within 3 weeks" to an email. > Yes. As I said, this is a problem I've raised for a while. It might be worth thinking about what exact process OSMF had in mind. Eg, a single email "do you consent", with response/non-response, or something more formal. The indirect object of "respond" could then be clarified. > Also, the idea that the "vote" could be conducted via email is rather > humorous. Can't wait to see the dispute over the "hanging chads" in > that scenario. I'm not sure why its humerous. There seems (to me) to be nothing wrong in principle in holding a vote by email or indeed by any other electronic means. There are of course problems, but then so are there with paper ballots as we all know. -- Francis Davey _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
