[Osmf-talk] New license proposal status II

Matija Nalis mnalis-openstreetmap-osmflist at voyager.hr
Thu Dec 10 00:37:26 UTC 2009


On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 02:54:54AM +0100, Henk Hoff wrote:
> 2009/12/8 Matija Nalis <mnalis-openstreetmap-osmflist at voyager.hr>
> 
> > So the question is, are there any set limits (and if so, what are
> > there), or it will be decided in that moment if that happens (and how ?
> > by LWG ? Board members ? OSMF members simple majority vote ? OSMF
> > members 2/3 vote ? or some other way) ? Or will the change proceed no
> > matter what the casualties ?
>
> There is not a distinct answer to your question. We could get into a lot of
> what-if scenario's. The problem with those what-if scenario's is that
> reality is always different. That's why the "week 9" and "week 13" are in
> the timeline, to give us a feeling of the direction of the most likely
> scenario and act accordingly.
> 
> Although one clear answer I can give you: the change will not proceed no
> matter what the casualties.

Thanks Henk, for addressing mine (and probably not only mine) concerns.

I do understand the need for flexibility and reluctance to get into a
detailed analysis and what-if game of each of the million possible different
possibilities.

I do however feel that *SOME* hard rules *really should* be set way *before*
the "week 9", ideally before "week 3" (as such information might impact some
OSMF membership votes). I think it would much calm the people, and reduce
pressure at later point in time when there will be enough pressure even
without it (week 9-13).

The (hard) decision will HAVE to be done anyway (and not that far away in
the future), and it would make (at least me, can't claim for others) much
more at ease if it looked like we actually have some sort of plan and rough
guidelines how things will proceed (currently it looks to me like all
planning ended with the producing of the proposal, and that nobody knows
what is or will be happening. I realize I'm probably wrong, but that's how 
it looks to me ATM -- time is passing and Implementation wiki is not being
updated, see below)

The additional advantage to doing that decision (that has to be done) now
instead of at the last moment is that if the Board/LWG gets undecided on the
gray area boundaries, they could poll opinions of OSMF members with much
less stress and with some more time to act and hence come with better
solution.

So I'm hoping for something that leaves gray areas unanswered (thus giving
flexibility) but at least somewhat defined, and puts the boundaries on white
and black areas. Nothing too detailed and most definitely something that is
easy to quickly agree among all board members [1] and which leaves the grey
area mostly undefined. For example (of course you'd change the numbers, I'm
just giving rough idea of the *form* I'd very much like to see):

a) if the OSMF members vote give less than "50%" yes-votes, Board will not
   proceed with any further licence-change activities and will instead work
   with OSMF members to see what were the reasons against and what could be
   changed to fix that; and come with another proposal if possible. (that
   part have been defined already, right ? Or so it looked from some emails
   on the list... If so, the numbers and info put on the wiki for
   Implementation plan timeline)

b) if the OSMF members vote give more or equal of "50%" yes-votes, the Board
   will proceed with up to the "week 9" timeplan, and then analyze OSM
   contributor votes, and the weight of their contributions and depending on
   that do one of the following:

b.1) if less than 80% of OSM contributors gives permission to change to ODbL, 
     or if more than 15% of the data (nodes, ways, relations) is calculated 
     that it would need to be deleted, the Board would abort the process, and try
     to see with OSM community what are the reasons[2], and then try to fix
     that. (AKA "black area", should be easily agreed upon all the Board members)

b.2) if more than 98% of OSM contributors gives their permission to change
     to ODbL, and if less than 1% of the data is calculated would need be
     deleted, the Board will proceed with the timeline to "week 13" and
     backup+removal of data [3] (AKA "white area", should be easily agreed
     upon all the Board members)

b.3) if the number of ODbL-accepting OSM contributors is between 80-98%, or
     if the data to be removed is between 1-15% of all OSM data, the Board
     will present the situation to OSMF membership (along with comments from
     [2]), the timeline processing will be suspended, and the Board/LWG will
     get in detailed analysis and discussion with OSMF membership on how to
     proceed. (AKA "grey area", where Board members could not easily agree
     upon the numbers and/or actions)

By reducing the what-if game to just a 3 choices (by leaving b.3 vague by
design), it is made much more simple to define.

As I said, such a decision will HAVE TO BE MADE eventually anyway, and I at
least would feel much more at ease knowing such hard decisions will not be
happening "on the fly" in short timeframe, but that at least there will be
such a boundaries agreed upon and published in advance, BEFORE the OSMF
voting (much less OSM contributors counting!) is finished.

Also, the number are just examples, if the Board can only easily agree with
"30%" instead of "80%" or with "50%" instead of "15%", or whatever, that is
okay. But some numbers should be easily findable that everybody can quickly
agree to, and you narrow them until you can't get unanimous decision any
more.

So I think that is easily doable (at least easily compared to other
decisions that will have to be made!), and that it should be done ASAP.

Thanks for listening,
Matija

[1] or LWG members -- who is actually driving the action at the moment now
    the license proposal is finished ?

[2] actually, it might be incorporated in the week4/5 OSM contributors
    questions. When/if the contributor gives their final (second) "no",
    they should be presented with a comment submission box so that can say
    *why*.  So in the case the situation ends in b.1 or b.3, we'll already
    have much of the comments why it failed and act accordingly. I think
    that would be a very good idea to do. Do you agree ?

[3] the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan
    timeline says at "Week 13" that there will be a "Community Question...
    What do we do with the people who have said no or not responded?"
    Is that poll still the main idea ? Or is that decided that data would be
    backed up and removed ?

-- 
Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.




More information about the osmf-talk mailing list