[Osmf-talk] Results of OSMF Member Vote

Graham Jones grahamjones139 at googlemail.com
Sun Dec 27 20:24:19 UTC 2009

I did cast my vote in this ballot, but came very close not to doing so
because I found the attitude on both sides of the very long debate quite
off-putting, with people who made quite reasonable sounding suggestions
being given very abrupt replies.   I think this included a suggestion that
we should define an acceptance threshold for the licence change to go
ahead.   I also got very bored trying to follow the arguments, and didn't
have time to try to check the validity of the points made.

That said, in the end I voted for the proposal because it seems to me that
the difference between ODBL and what we have now is so small that I find it
hard to believe that many contributors will really refuse to change.  (I see
the Public Domain or otherwise debate as a separate issue).

Matija's point is very valid though that we ought to know what we would do
if a 'significant' proportion refused to re-licence their data - it would be
silly to split the project, or lose a lot of people's contributions just for
this change (which as I say is in my mind very small).   I therefore support
the proposal that we define a cut off for how much data we are willing to
lose for the change to go ahead.


2009/12/27 Matija Nalis <mnalis-openstreetmap-osmflist at voyager.hr>

> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 01:31:28AM +0000, Matt Amos wrote:
> > the OSMF member vote has been closed, and the results from 270 members
> > polled** are:
> Thanks for the results, Matt
> >   Approved the process:        132
> >   Did not approve the process:  16
> >   Didn't vote:                 122
> >
> > alternatively,
> >
> >   Approval rate: 89%
> >   Turnout rate:  55%
> Those numbers frighten me very much, if we are to proceed with ODbL
> implementation plan as charted.
> I would actually expect OSMF membership to be *more* interested in the
> license change issues than the average OSM contributor; but even if we
> assume that it is representative of the general OSM population, it is
> terrible !
> If the general OSM poll (that is: "do you relicense" question) has the
> similar results, it would be catastrophic. Data from *more than half* of
> the
> users would have to be removed. Add to that the multiple editors of the the
> same points/ways/relations and we could easily end up with something like
> 2/3 (or more) of the map being deleted (or at least very heavily damaged).
> Even *much* better results (like "only" 20% of the map being destroyed)
> would be IMO too horrible to justify the advantages the clearer license
> brings. Not to mention the social problems such an action would bring: this
> project thrives on enthusiasm of users; if much of someones work of several
> years gets removed because *someone else* didn't want (or bother) to
> relicense, there is no way such guy/gal is going to spread a nice word
> about
> OSM, much less contribute ever again.
> IMHO, anything more than 10% of data being destroyed (and that is probably
> less than 10% of the users) would bring much more damage than good to the
> project. (And that is assuming ODbL *is* the perfect solution to the
> problem,
> which it might turn out not to be).
> Some time ago[1] I tried (without much success) to get some answers what
> the
> Board thinks would be a acceptable number of user/data loss under which the
> license change should proceed.
> With this results of OSMF vote; I think it is essential that this is
> cleared
> out before we proceed with implementation plan. Actually, I think the OSMF
> membership should be asked about it.
> Therefore, I would ask the Board to make the following poll to the
> OSMF membership before proceeding with implementation plan:
> "We should proceed with change of license only if that would result in:
> (a) no data being removed at all
> (b) less than 1% of the data being removed
> (c) less than 5% of the data being removed
> (d) less than 10% of the data being removed
> (e) less than 15% of the data being removed
> (f) less than 20% of the data being removed
> (g) less than 25% of the data being removed
> (h) less than 35% of the data being removed
> (i) less than 50% of the data being removed
> (j) less than 75% of the data being removed
> (k) less than 90% of the data being removed
> (l) no matter what the loss of data"
> (I understand that (a) actually means heavily changing the
> implementation/backup plan
> in the lines of having multiple-licensed data to coexist, and that (l) is
> lunatic, but
> I wanted to give full range of options.)
> Then the median of acceptable loss should be calculated, and announced (and
> used) as a limit at which we abort license change implementation plan (and
> rethink what to do) instead of proceeding with data removal/archiving.
> Matija
> [1] Message-ID: <20091210003726.GA15684 at eagle102.home.lan>
> --
> Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk

Dr. Graham Jones
Hartlepool, UK
email: grahamjones139 at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20091227/bea47147/attachment.html>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list