[OSM-talk] Database Rebuild scheduled to start on the 27th of March 2012
Simon Poole
See http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Rebuild_Plan
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
ta...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Tom Hughes
> See http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Rebuild_Plan
I think that date is very unlikely to be met.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
Josh Doe
> On 21/03/12 08:26, Simon Poole wrote:
>
>> See http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Rebuild_Plan
>
> I think that date is very unlikely to be met.
Putting it a little differently, how confident is the Rebuild Team
that all of those tasks can be accomplished and thoroughly tested
following that schedule? Personally, I've never seen a schedule so
ambitious, especially for an all-volunteer group. Is the OSMF board
putting their full trust in the Rebuild Team, such that if the team
says the schedule cannot be met without any doubts (e.g. of data
integrity being compromised), then OSMF will postpone the rebuild?
Since I don't think OSMF has any choice but to rely on the Team (since
they're the only ones with the skills to do this), does the Rebuild
Team have the courage to tell the OSMF "no; not yet"?
Should this discussion be taking place on osmf-talk?
-Josh
Frederik Ramm
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 06:17:06 -0400
Josh Doe <jo...@joshdoe.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Tom Hughes <t...@compton.nu> wrote:
> > On 21/03/12 08:26, Simon Poole wrote:
> >
> >> See http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Rebuild_Plan
> >
> > I think that date is very unlikely to be met.
>
> Putting it a little differently, how confident is the Rebuild Team
> that all of those tasks can be accomplished and thoroughly tested
> following that schedule?
I don't believe that this schedule will work; it is a schedule that was
basically created backwards: "We want to finish by April 1st, then
what deadlines do we have to make for that to work". I have
for the past few weeks encouraged everyone to work diligently
instead to a deadline pulled out of thin air. Good progress has been
made but more time will be needed to do things right. The "April 1st"
proclamation did a lot of good in the past months because people
understood that we were serious, but clinging to it *now* is likely to
lead an unnecessarily downtime and sloppy work, which on top of all is
more stress for everyone involved than need be.
I'm committed to help doing the necessary stuff to get the license
change done and to do it properly. I'm not, however, committed to a
politically motivated deadline that serves no other purpose than for
OSMF to be able to say "look we met our deadline." This is just silly
and needs to stop. It is neither good leadership nor good management;
it is an embarrassment.
Bye
Frederik
Steve Bennett
> I think that date is very unlikely to be met.
I sincerely hope they don't even try. This is an entirely self-imposed
deadline with no external drivers at all - let's take our time and get
the best result possible.
Steve
Lester Caine
> The "April 1st" proclamation did a lot of good in the past months because people
> lead an unnecessarily downtime and sloppy work,
As I have said in the past ... any existing user who has not accepted the new
terms just becomes disabled completely and we are no longer waiting for
stragglers to accept.
The block I'm currently working on around Cheltenham in reality would not be a
major loss. I'm having to verify and remap what is rather poor quality data
anyway, but I don't have time to finish that this week, and the other local
blocks such as at Malvern are only fine detail that would probably be better
mapped clean anyway.
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
Russ Nelson
> I don't believe that this schedule will work; it is a schedule that was
> basically created backwards: "We want to finish by April 1st, then
> what deadlines do we have to make for that to work".
I agree with Frederik. The rebuild code contains neither the word
"public" nor "domain" (nor even "PD"). I'm a little worried that the
people who have {{PD-user}} in their wiki page or have checked "Public
Domain" in their OSM profile, or public domain imports such as
source=PGS (regardless of who did the importing) are not being taken
into account.
And I still object to protecting the copyright of anonymous users who
have neither accepted or denied the CT. If they can't be bothered to
do a few clickies to protect their anonymity, we shouldn't bother to
protect their copyright.
--
--my blog is at http://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog
sabas88
Il giorno 22/mar/2012 11:00, "Simon Poole" <si...@poole.ch> ha scritto:
>
> c) we are providing mechanisms (changeset level overrides, "adoption")
> that allow PD data to be carried forward, preferably after consultation
> with the mapper in question
>
> Simon
If PD option is a problem, users can have a way to switch to ODbL?
Stefano
Simon Poole
Not quite sure what your question is, but yes naturally any user that hasn't agreed to the CTs can still agree and have his data included (at least up to mid next week).
This should not be a problem for anybody that considers their contributions PD anyway, but this is OSM, you can make a problem out of anything :-).
Simon
sabas88
Il giorno 22/mar/2012 11:14, "Simon Poole" <si...@poole.ch> ha scritto:
>
>
> Not quite sure what your question is, but yes naturally any user that hasn't agreed to the CTs can still agree and have his data included (at least up to mid next week).
Nope, I've accepted long time ago but I checked the PD option.
If there would be issues again on relicensing I'd like to put my edits odbl only..
Alex Barth
A series of people have expressed doubts on this thread that the proposed rebuild plan is realistic and I haven't seen a response to this here.
If the current schedule is not realistic - is there an update to it in the works?
Do we need to expect an extended time period of OpenStreetMap being reduced to read-only mode?
Even if a revised, realistic schedule would reveal a significant delay I would prefer it much rather than an overly ambitious one that will have us push dates from week to week - accurate dates would be really helpful for planning mapping activities, map renders and communications.
Alex Barth
http://twitter.com/lxbarth
tel (202) 250-3633
Russ Nelson
> We've been through this multiple times, but here we go again:
Obviously not enough times, because I hadn't heard of this before. I
was under the impression that when I said that my edits were in the
public domain, everybody believed me. I think other people probably
think the same thing.
> b) the meaning of the PD-checkbox can't be reinterpreted after the fact
Yes, it can, and it should be. If I make a public declaration that I
do not intend to pursue copyright claims against anybody, or that I
think copyright law should not exist, or that my copyright is invalid,
or that my works are in the public domain, then I am very unlikely to
prevail in a copyright suit. The judge is going to say "You don't
think you have a copyright -- why should I?"
If you say you don't have a copyright, you don't. It worries me that
the OSMF is not pursing the PD declaration. It's as if the OSMF hasn't
talked to a lawyer, and is just making up reasons for doing things.
Sorry to keep pushing so hard on this, but why delete map data
unnecessarily? Why delete MY data unnecessarily?
Toby Murray
> Simon Poole writes:
> > We've been through this multiple times, but here we go again:
>
> Obviously not enough times, because I hadn't heard of this before. I
> was under the impression that when I said that my edits were in the
> public domain, everybody believed me. I think other people probably
> think the same thing.
I had someone respond to my license change email saying that they had
agreed to the new license and had checked the PD checkbox so that
their edits wouldn't be a concern in any future license change. Of
course with the new CT that wouldn't be a problem anyway... but still.
I would assume that that the average user does consider this checkbox
to be a valid deceleration. Well at least the average user who isn't
blindly checking every box in sight without reading anything :)
Toby
Peter Wendorff
> Sorry to keep pushing so hard on this, but why delete map data
> unnecessarily? Why delete MY data unnecessarily?
IMHO you're right, I cannot say, why the OSMF don't want to count data
from users declaring PD as "clean".
Your second question on the opposite is different. I don't like to, but
I would agree to delete your data as you are very well aware of the
license change.
I think, it is/was okay to say no to the license change, and probably it
would have been better to distingt between "I vote for the license
change" and "I agree my data to be licensed under the new license" in
the time we voted for or against the change.
But now it's different. I'm sure nobody will tell you later, you turned
around and would be pro ODBL. You have stated clearly that you are not.
But as you declare your data to be PD nothing prevents you from ticking
the box and agreeing to the ODBL and CT for your (old) data.
The only argument against doing it is IMHO the childish "but with
agreeing I vote for the license change". This is probably true with the
wording chosen, but as the license change - sorry to say that to you -
is decided, you are not in the position to decide for or against the change.
But you are in the position to keep your data in OSM or to delete it.
It's up to you, not to anyone else.
For users we could not contact in the past months, the question might be
slightly different, but that has nothing to do with active users like
you, who are aware of and who willingly oppose to keep their data in OSM
over the change.
regards
Peter
Simon Poole
Am 24.03.2012 16:42, schrieb Russ Nelson:
> Simon Poole writes:
> ....
>
> > b) the meaning of the PD-checkbox can't be reinterpreted after the fact
>
> Yes, it can, and it should be. If I make a public declaration that I
> do not intend to pursue copyright claims against anybody, or that I
> think copyright law should not exist, or that my copyright is invalid,
> or that my works are in the public domain, then I am very unlikely to
> prevail in a copyright suit. The judge is going to say "You don't
> think you have a copyright -- why should I?"
See
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License#What_Are_The_Choices.3F
This is not about what a judge would potentially think such a statement
would mean in a vacuum, it is about what the party that you are
contracting with has said what it means and what without any doubt would
be the interpretation that a court would follow.
Simon
Alan Millar
> I had someone respond to my license change email saying that they had
> agreed to the new license and had checked the PD checkbox so that
> their edits wouldn't be a concern in any future license change. Of
> course with the new CT that wouldn't be a problem anyway... but still.
> I would assume that that the average user does consider this checkbox
> to be a valid deceleration.
Now *that* is a funny typo! I'm sure the average user does consider the PD checkbox to be a valid declaration; I certainly did. Turns out it is just deceleration to the OSM project.... :-)
- Alan