[OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

[Liz]

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Gervase Markham wrote:
> > Now Gerv, what is your lower limit?
> > for
> > number of contributors overall?
> > number of active contributors
> > quantity of data?
> > 
> > I do not accept that a decision can be made without the numbers being set
> > *first*.
> 
> OK, let's say we do what you say. I define my limits, you define your 
> limits, every single member of the LWG defines theirs, lots of other 
> contributors do too. We now have a big pile of limits.
> 
> Then, we actually do the process. It turns out that we've got more 
> contributors than 97% of people's limits, but only more data than 83% of 
> people's limits. What's the limit on the percentage of different 
> people's limits that we have to pass? What are the limits on the limits? 
> Do we then have to have another poll to decide what different people's 
> opinions are on the limits for the limits?
> 
> Please, can't you see that this would lead to an entirely unproductive 
> multi-month argument, and no useful progress being made?
> 
> Gerv

I did not ask for thousands of limits. I have asked, formally, before this 
time, for these from OSMF.
After 8 months, there are none.
You have stated that if the % for cutover was 99.9% it would go ahead.
As you seemed to be one of few people willing to suggest any sort of numerical 
answer, I wished to expand your answer.

If we do get thousands of replies, then we would easily find a reasonable 
answer for what is acceptable data loss. 

I'm not going to take you up with "useful progress". That depends on where you 
stand. But without debate and discussion there will not be progress. With 
debate and discussion there will be progress. It may not be in the direction 
that any of us currently imagine.
There has been one interesting suggestion made already in this thread which 
has been buried but did offer new ways of thinking about the problem.