[OSM-talk] fact-based vote?

[John Smith]

On 15 July 2010 04:56, Richard Weait <richard at weait.com> wrote:
> [I re-added attribution for John Smith that appears to have been
> dropped during context trimming.]

Pretty sure Kai was responsible for this sentiment on the legal list thread.

> Right, the contributor terms state 2/3 of active contributors and a
> minimum of three weeks for the vote.  Would an additional three-week
> or longer voting period, added to the process now be a problem?

3 weeks v the possibility of failure because people are concerned
about the result if they agree to the change?

> Limiting a hypothetical (what should it be called? referendum?) to
> just active contributors might exclude some who have just agreed to
> the license upgrade.  Is this the right thing to do?  Should the
> hypothetical referendum(?) be open to any person who responded to the
> license upgrade question?  Or to any person with an OSM account?

If we are splitting out agreement with the new license with a vote to
change over to the license then it should be any active contributors
since they technically agreed to cc-by-sa as well at present.

> What role should a hypothetical referendum take?  Should the
> referendum be added as 5) so that LWG or OSMF Board might decide to
> not proceed?  Or should a referendum _replace_ 3) and 4), and any poll
> result should be presented to the wider community?

I'm not sure if adding this between 3 or 4, or adding it as 5 makes
much difference.

> And for those critical of the process to date, would this address your
> concerns and if not, what would address your concerns?

It would help a lot more than the current situation of what-ifs and
guessing what the fall out would be, this way we would know exactly
what will be lost if the license change went ahead.