[OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources

[Francis Davey]

On 14 December 2010 14:08, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> 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