Wow, I still have yet to receive a straight answer from anyone and it doesn't look like I will. The trolls have come out yet again. Sorry for that. I have been beaten into submission.
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Dermot McNally <[email protected]> wrote: > On 16 April 2011 00:07, Ian Dees <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Thanks for asking me (if this were a vote my answer would be "No", but in > > the interest of moving on from this nonsense and keeping data flowing > I'll > > eventually say "Yes"), but the important part of my question was everyone > > else -- the community of OpenStreetMap. When were *they* asked? > > FWIW I would have favoured earlier specific requests for a vote, but > it's basically been an impossible position for the LWG from what I can > see as an outsider. On the one hand, everybody wants to feel consulted > about the change. On the other, plenty of people have complained > throughout the process about being offered a half-baked solution. > Turns out this stuff is complicated. No, it's not complicated. When whoever it was decided that we need to change license, the *first* thing that should have happened is a communication of the desire with the community, information about it presented clearly and thoughtfully, questions responded to in a timely manner, and a vote held by the active mappers to confirm that yes, this change should be pursued. Instead what happened is... none of that. I appreciate the hard work of those that spent the time to draw up the new license and work with a small fraction of the community to make decisions on it, but I think they put the cart before the horse. Anyway, I apologize for bringing this up again and degenerating talk@ into a field of flames. I was hoping to get a straight answer this time. I'll go unsubscribe from talk (like a lot of others :) ) and click the accept button.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
