[OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?

[Ed Avis]

SteveC <steve <at> asklater.com> writes:

>My take on the idea of having a vote on whether we'd theoretically move to the
>ODbL so long as everyone else does...

>The consequences part: Because nothing will really happen either way if the
>majority of this proposed step vote yes or no, that means that the incentives
>to vote yes or no are vastly different than saying yes or no to the actual
>license change. That means that people will vote differently

Yes, and that's exactly the point.

If you have a free choice: should we change the licence or not (or should we
move assuming everyone else agrees), then you will vote according to what you
believe is best.  On the other hand, if you are offered the very different
choice of 'say yes, or have your data deleted from the project'...
That is not a vote at all.

>Oh and by the way, as a thought experiment - if 50% of people drop out due to
>the license change then you only have to wait a few months for the data to be
>put back in by other new people - go and look at the user growth and
>data growth graphs.

This assumes that the growth rate of the project would be unaffected by the
loss of good reputation caused by deleting contributors' work.

>I'm worried that we're going to burn the guys on the LWG out. They must feel
>like they're in some kafka-esque dialogue with no upside for them.

I do think that's rather the situation here.

-- 
Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com>