On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote: >> The *main* reason for the active-contributor definition is that we need to >> exclude those who are dead, unreachable, or have lost interest, from the >> decision-making process. > > Those people aren't going to respond within three weeks to an email, are they?
Maybe they'll respond with an autoresponder, which just goes to show why the active contributor definition was poorly drafted, but presumably "respond" is going to be defined as clicking on some sort of link somewhere, and not merely replying to the email. It seems to me very accidental the way the active contributor definition and the 2/3 majority interpretation combine. Why not just define active contributors as active contributors, say that you have to attempt to send them an email at their last known email address and give them at least 3 weeks from the time the email is sent to vote, and then make the threshold 2/3 majority of voting active contributrors? Or better yet, drop the "active" from the "active contributors", and make inactive contributors eligible to vote as well. They still won't be counted towards the 2/3 requirement unless they actually show up and vote, which is a good indicator that they're not dead, unreachable, or have lost interest. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
