[OSM-talk] fact-based vote?

Kai Krueger kakrueger at gmail.com
Wed Jul 14 22:31:42 BST 2010



Richard Weait wrote:
> 
> 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?
> 
Given that the whole process has taken on the order of two years, I don't
think a three-week community voting period is going to harm, even though I
suspect everyone just wants to get this topic over and done with as soon as
possible. 


Richard Weait wrote:
> 
> 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 am not sure it matters too much. But adding it as 5) would probably change
the proposed process in the minimum possible way and leave the full
flexibility of a judgement call and recommendation with the LWG and Board. 


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

>From my personal point of view, I think that would be a very good solution
to ensure the community is happy with the outcome. Indeed, imho much better
than attempting to propose any what-if scenarios, that I was suggesting
earlier, and addresses the issue much more directly. With such a solution I
very much hope that more people will feel comfortable to agreeing to the new
license who were more worried about the process than the license it self.

So I do hope, that despite the flames this discussion had a constructive and
positive aspect to it.

Kai

P.S. As it might have not come over in some of my previous mails, I would
like to again express my gratitude to the members of the LWG for embarking
on this unthankful yet necessary job of hammering out the new License and
its process.  And would like to say that you have done a great job, even
though on the odd technical question I might have disagreed.

-- 
View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/fact-based-vote-tp5294260p5294902.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.




More information about the talk mailing list