Frederik Ramm wrote: > > Be reminded that you are asked to agree to a contract with OSMF (the > CT); you are not asked whether or not you like the way OSMF goes about > implementing that contract. It is important to separate these two. > I would love to separate these issues out, as indeed they are very much different things, in some sense even orthogonal. However, the OSMF as far as I can tell currently do not intend to (formally) ask the community about whether they like the way OSMF is going about it or not and so it gives people no option to separate these things out if they have an opinion on the later.
OSMF isn't even telling the community what the process is in advance, instead, as you call it it is this "fuzzy" process that can change at any point. I do fully understand the reasons why OSMF and the LWG suggest this "fuzzy" process, but I also hope that they understand why this process is very uncomfortable to many. Have a full community vote at the end of the process, once everything is set in stone and see if the community thinks the consequences are overall positive or negative. Just like Wikipedia did on their license change. Then there is a lot less reason to confound these two separate issues. Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-License-Change-Phase-3-Pre-Announcement-tp6266295p6277946.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
