[OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !

Tue Jun 14 13:48:56 BST 2011

Good arguments and reasoning Dermot,  (no irony)

Now see how these match with the history of the CT approval process, and 
you might even change opinion!

And to Russ, calling others a troll will transform you into one once!
This discussion is of high quality, high level argument based and both
sides are to be respected from their perspective.

There is no consensus to be expected, but if OSM will
not prevail the end you all will (maybe) understand why !

After all, the overwhelming majority that clicked without 
even reading or considering reading the CT will abandon OSM
as quick as a click, for another toy of preference.

And those who actually read and object against the CT (besides a possible majority
that is in favor for equally qualified reasons) should be considered
with more respect, as both groups form the core of this project.

To get back to the start of this thread, becoming a
member of the OSMF will reinforce the basis of this project.
Regardless of the fact that our legal basis  will result in CT/ODBL or PD.

So again, I want to call everyone reading this to spent a few beers
in "our favorite" hobby (if so!) and assure the future of OSM.
Regards,

Gert Gremmen

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Dermot McNally [mailto:dermotm at gmail.com] 
Verzonden: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 2:13 PM
Aan: Russ Nelson
CC: Nathan Edgars II; talk at openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF !

On 14 June 2011 05:18, Russ Nelson <nelson at crynwr.com> wrote:

> Nathan was being gracious. You ARE trolling. Stop it.

I like to assume good faith on the lists. I have never for a moment
doubted the sincerity of your position on the licence change, and I
demand the same courtesy from you. It's acceptable for people to draw
different conclusions from the same data. In a democracy, a majority
decides which way a decision should fall.

> Very likely many non-Muslims voted against the ban. They were NOT
> treated differently after the vote. Stop arguing that accepting the
> license means anything more than accepting the license, Dermot. It
> doesn't. In particular, I accepted the license because I know that if
> I do not, then my (rather significant) contributions would be deleted,
> and I would be banned from further contributions. I can and have
> accepted the license without approving of it.

That too is a reason to accept. Most countries and organisations avoid
the kind of micro-democracy that would have avoided the situation we
have today in OSM where some people (a minority) complain that they
are being asked to "vote" (or "pronounce", "decide", "choose" if you
don't want to call it a vote) on the wrong question and that they
would prefer to have been asked a different question. Such a
micro-democracy would never have managed to agree on a question to
ask, and while this might be a useful outcome for those who favour the
status quo, that seems to me a lot like one group asserting its will
over another not by constituting a majority, but by constituting a
loud enough minority (UN Security Council springs to mind here).

So instead of a micro-democracy, we have ended up with a central group
of people producing the proposal on which ultimately all mappers
needed to take a decision. As will be clear, I tend to agree with the
thrust of their reasoning and I find that the people involved are
honest and have the good of the project at heart. But is it not still
unfair that specifically that group got to come up with the proposal?
Not at all. And again, I'd like to come back to how democratic
governments tend to work.

If you look at the role of the OSMF in advancing the licence change
initiative, one option is to consider that they were acting in the
manner of a government. This might grate if you take the view that you
never voted for them. But ultimately, it isn't just governments that
get to propose laws. Minority groups in parliaments, right down to
single independent members, also get to do so. And in the case of the
Bavarian smoking ban, a law change even came from an ad-hoc group of
citizens. So the right to propose legislation (or, in this case, a
licence change) is not some mysterious one. There is no reason any
grouping within the project cannot form to promote a different change
- in fact, any group that wishes to do so will find it much easier to
do so once the initial change to CT is made because of the 66%
majority.

"But", I (continuously) hear you point out, "the OSMF is uniquely
well-placed to force through its will because it controls the
servers.". This is, of course, true. I can counter with the usual
retort that it is everyone's option to fork and that this is the
defense against an evil Foundation. You can counter that OSMF will
still prevail as it enjoys recognition as the one true fork. And we
all go away frowning.

Thing is, even an evil foundation would have to consider the
sustainability of a post-CT data set. On the one hand, OSMF has the
advantage that it could, using the servers and domains it controls,
move to ODbL under CT with, say 20% of today's data - technically they
are not even subject to any democratic decision of mappers. To return
briefly to the issue of legislation sponsored by a government, the
cabinet in planning the legislation needs to keep it sufficiently
reasonable that it will pass a vote by a majority of the house.
Opposition-sponsored bills are harder. They require the same majority
and you know that government party can defeat it on a whim. Such a
bill needs to be so strong it its merit that even your political
rivals will go for it. The Bavarian referendum on the smoking ban is
probably closest to our licence change, and even here, a defined
majority of the turnout is sufficient to carry the law.

In our "vote" the OSMF had both the theoretical latitude to ignore
democracy and operate without a majority, but also the practical
constraint that anything less than an overwhelming mandate would screw
up the map beyond redemption. This much stronger imperative informed
the entire process of licence selection. The process was not a secret
and nobody's consent was taken for granted. The eventual proposal is
one that failed to please many, for all kinds of reasons. Russ, I've
already publicly stated that you did the decent thing by agreeing to
the change despite your many difficulties with the process. As far as
I'm concerned, barring those mappers who have contributed data
incompatible with the new terms, there is nothing in the post-change
OSM that moves OSM further away from allowing mappers to advance
difference licence agendas they may have.

The removal of single-mapper vetos and the pain of lost data that goes
with it is a bitter pill that we're much better off swallowing now
than later.

So we return, finally, to "what is a majority?". There are lots of
reasons for saying yes or no. I'm certainly not arguing that every
"yes" is intended as a grateful endorsement of everything the OSMF has
ever done. But what it should mean, or the mapper wasn't paying
attention, is "yes, I will let my data be used in these new ways and
under these new terms. I think the world will be a better place,
possibly just a little bit, if my data stays in the dataset reachable
under openstreetmap.org.". So far, a vast majority of those voting
(representing also a majority of map data) have taken that view. Any
personal misgivings aside, democracy says that this is what should
happen.

And as in any democratic process, anybody who wishes, at a later
stage, to yell "I told you so" gets to do that too.

> Please stop trying to put words in my mouth. That's an ugly thing to do.

Not my intention - everybody is free to explain what they meant by
"yes". My point is, if enough people say "yes", it's fair to take them
at their word and to proceed with the licence change.

Dermot

-- 
--------------------------------------
Igaühel on siin oma laul
ja ma oma ei leiagi üles

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk