[OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 04/16/2011 01:29 AM, Dermot McNally wrote:
> FWIW I would have favoured earlier specific requests for a vote, but
> it's basically been an impossible position for the LWG from what I can
> see as an outsider. On the one hand, everybody wants to feel consulted
> about the change. On the other, plenty of people have complained
> throughout the process about being offered a half-baked solution.
> Turns out this stuff is complicated.

With hindsight, the proper way of doing this would have been to setup 
the LWG some time around 2007, have LWG reach out to the community in 
the wides possible manner, make sure people understand the problems, 
maybe even have national groups in some countries, devise possible 
solutions, and seek community involvement in every step.

Apart from the fact that this would have required more manpower an 
patience than might be available from the volunteers involved in OSM, 
this attempt at including everyone would probably have been in vain 
since OSM grows so fast. Assume that some time in mid-2008 a vote of all 
registered users has resulted in a 95% "we must drop CC-BY-SA" vote; 
then in mid-2009 you would already have had two new users for every one 
who had taken part in that vote, new users who "have not been consulted" 
and who "have not been part of the process". And so on!

One would then have to say to these people what you are saying now:

> I'm not the first person to say so on the lists, but it seems to bear
> repeating - the process has not been a secret, the key details of what
> problem the change attempts to solve have been documented for a long
> time now and absolutely anybody with a thirst for knowledge on the
> matter has had many resources at his or her disposal.

But, just as today, this would be unlikely to make them happy. In our 
concrete case,

> When I first
> became aware of the documentation and read it, I certainly felt
> consulted, and very soon after it became possible to indicate
> approval, it was clear to me both that the promoters of the change
> wished me to do so (at that point I felt "asked") and how I might go
> about doing so.

The situation you describe is now something like 1.5 years in the 
past... there will ALWAYS be people who feel they were not consulted, 
and if the process takes years rather than months, they will (at least 
for the foreseeable future) ALWAYS be the majority.

I'm very glad we have at least made CT agreement mandatory for new users 
now which sort of softens the issue.

Bye
Frederik