[Talk-us] Resigning in protest

[Chris Hunter]

I'm basing my decision on the ODbL roadmap (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan),
Why you should vote Yes (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No)
and Why you should vote No (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No)
pages in the WIKI.

Here are my objections:


   1. The OSMF did not do enough due-diligance before voting to adopt the
   ODBL.  Discussion was done on an extremely noisy list (talk@) and AFAIK
   none of the board ever cross-posted progress reports to the sub-lists.  This
   is a classic case of security-by-obscurity. - See Chapter 1 of the
   Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

   2. The change is being done on the say-so of only 132 out of 254 paid
   members.  I'm not an expert on Robert's Rules, but don't you need to have to
   have a super-majority to change the fundamental nature of an organization?

   3. The roadmap as it stood yesterday made it sound like the ODbL is
   already passed, and that the OSMF was just dragging its heals about when it
   plans on implementing it or notifying anyone.  If this is not correct, I
   apologize.

   4. Last weekend I did some fairly minor WIKI updates and noticed several
   slippymaps were rendering with a reference to something called the
   "Openstreetmap License."  Between the updated slippymaps and Firefishy's
   original edit, it sounded like the OSMF had finally gotten around to making
   the contributor license mandatory.

   4.a My current job is time consuming and has a draconian Internet access
   policy.  I may well have become a victim of FUD, but I can only read my
   email on my phone, and I simply don't have time to read the talk@ group's
   5+ daily digests.  See points 1 and 3.

   5. The OSMF's actions have made me feel disenfranchised on several
   occasions.  My biggest sources of frustration are the original Local Chapter
   agreement, and the ODBL adoption vote that was taken on 27-Dec-2009 (
   http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2009-December/000753.html
   ).

   6. To answer Serge's PMs, yes, this is a low blow, but my experiences on
   points 3 and 4 made me feel like there was no other choice.  If I can
   stretch your metaphor a bit, it was looking like the jack-boots were on the
   doorstep, so a kick to the groin seemed like the best defense.

What did you find objectionable?  Maybe I'll be turned off by it too.
>
>
> I'm not speaking for Chris, but I'm of the opinion that the OSM Foundation
> did not perform due diligence in getting the approval (or at least the
> opinion) of the overall contributors to the database. I think I understand
> that the OSMF's opinion is that the license change is needed in order to
> have a legal framework to operate internationally, but I don't think it's
> appropriate to only ask the ~300 members of OSMF for approval.
>
> Please take this with a grain of salt though, as I think the current change
> only applies to new user accounts.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20100511/41a50284/attachment.html>