[OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

[Anthony]

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:11 AM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5 January 2011 01:02, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
>>> But you are right in that there is a weakness because people are not
>>> guaranteed a right to contribute.
>> [,,,,]
>>> But what could we do?
>>
>> Let people remove their data if they don't agree to future licensing
>> terms.  Even an opt-out arrangement would be better than the current
>> one, where 2 people with 1 edit each get to override 1 person with
>> 10,000 edits.
>
> +1
>
> On the surface that would seem to give a better indication of if a
> license change should be adopted or not, but I agree with Frederik's
> point that pointless or abusive edits shouldn't make someone be
> eligible as an active contributor either when it comes to influencing
> major changes... What if those 10,000 edits were duplicating ways
> simply to up their stats so as to have more influence over things...

Then you let them opt out and don't worry about it.  If their ways
aren't useful, then they don't have any more influence over things.  I
never suggest weighting votes by number of edits.  That wouldn't work
for much the reason you've explained above.  You can't come up with an
algorithm for measuring quality of edits, but if you let people
opt-out of changes, then the OSMF board can decide on the quality and
weight of those edits, and whether or not they outweigh the need to
switch to the new license.