looking again at the "process"
Liz
the once offered vote by contributors has just been dropped entirely.
Morally, this is just wrong.
Who gave OSMF the mandate to change the licence?
They are making me more determined.
80n
Is there an audit trail of that change? Can you point to a wiki page history or some OSMF or LWG minutes that document that decision?
80n
TimSC
> I looked again at the "process" for deciding on a licence change and indeed,
> the once offered vote by contributors has just been dropped entirely.
>
>
grasp the legal issues. Ironically, I would be happy if OSMF just
admitted to the fact and promised to do better in future. Ideally, they
would do a poll but now I don't trust them not to mess it up.
One specific detail that really concerns me is they have a "vote" along
side a pro-OBdL campaign. The proposal being voted on was entirely
biased for relicensing. So the intention of the OSMF vote was not to
actually seek consensus, it was to seek approval of their committee
decision.
Secondly, the democratic attitude of some board members are at odds with
my view. When discussing other issues with Iv�n S�nchez Ortega (of the
OSMF board), he advised me to exercise my democratic influence by
joining the board! That is not how representative democratic systems
work, as far as I am concerned.
> See, on one hand, OSMF is a democratically run entity. If the community wants
> the OSMF to steer in some direction, people wanting so will step up for the
> board. Which is why I urge you to step up for board elections next year.
>
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-general/2010-July/000179.html
Thirdly, the relicense vote was only OSMF members, not contributors
generally. I can't think of any valid reason to limit the vote in that
way. When I talked to SteveC, I think he said he didn't want to spam the
contributors, but I was in argument mode and I can't remember clearly.
(And contributors don't vote in OSMF board elections.)
Fourthly, the option of going PD was ignored because it was considered
too divisive. The LWG seems to have been founded on that assumption.
This of course doesn't seek consensus; it just imposes a decision. If no
consensus in a public forum could be reached, it should have been put to
a vote.
Considering the previous points, I conclude OSMF board believe they can
legitimately take decisions without seeking a mandate from mapping
contributors. For them, being board members and approval of the OSMF
membership is enough. Considering OSM is a collaborative mapping project
that that is only supported by OSMF, I consider their attitude as
undemocratic. They probably argue that they can get a majority, if it
were put to a vote of all contributors. But this is irrelevant, because
that is merely rubber stamping their committee lead decision.
I might add that Mike Collinson has had a constructive attitude
throughout, at least when dealing with me. My discussion with him:
As for the way ahead, we are in a bad situation. It's basically too late
to really address these fundamental issues. (Unless ODbL relicensing is
derailed, but I don't expect that.) The best I hope for is strong
assurances that things will improve.
I have been reading a fair amount of Popper, Thoreau and Rousseau
recently, so I probably have weird ideas about democracy! Rant finished!
TimSC
80n
On 14/08/10 08:53, Liz wrote:This is my main objection, too. This is partly because I don't fully grasp the legal issues. Ironically, I would be happy if OSMF just admitted to the fact and promised to do better in future. Ideally, they would do a poll but now I don't trust them not to mess it up.
I looked again at the "process" for deciding on a licence change and indeed,
the once offered vote by contributors has just been dropped entirely.
One specific detail that really concerns me is they have a "vote" along side a pro-OBdL campaign. The proposal being voted on was entirely biased for relicensing. So the intention of the OSMF vote was not to actually seek consensus, it was to seek approval of their committee decision.
Secondly, the democratic attitude of some board members are at odds with my view. When discussing other issues with Iván Sánchez Ortega (of the OSMF board), he advised me to exercise my democratic influence by joining the board! That is not how representative democratic systems work, as far as I am concerned.
See, on one hand, OSMF is a democratically run entity. If the community wants
the OSMF to steer in some direction, people wanting so will step up for the
board. Which is why I urge you to step up for board elections next year.
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-general/2010-July/000179.html
Thirdly, the relicense vote was only OSMF members, not contributors generally. I can't think of any valid reason to limit the vote in that way. When I talked to SteveC, I think he said he didn't want to spam the contributors, but I was in argument mode and I can't remember clearly. (And contributors don't vote in OSMF board elections.)
Fourthly, the option of going PD was ignored because it was considered too divisive. The LWG seems to have been founded on that assumption. This of course doesn't seek consensus; it just imposes a decision. If no consensus in a public forum could be reached, it should have been put to a vote.
My recollection of the circumstances leading to the creation of the LWG was specifically to evaluate the ODbL license (FIL as it was then) and if suitable prepare things so that OSMF could present it initally to OSMF membership for approval.
The preparation of an implementation plan, etc is probably within their brief. Ultimately though it is the OSMF board that presented the license proposals (as a package) to the OSMF membership for approval.
What should then have happened is that the OSMF should have put it to the community for approval. This has never happened and this is the point at which the OSMF has transitioned from supporting OSM to controlling OSM.
TimSC
On 14/08/10 11:06, 80n wrote:
>
> What should then have happened is that the OSMF should have put it to
> the community for approval.
Strictly speaking, they should then seek consensus of the community at
this stage. OSMF could argue they are currently seeking "approval" using
their current relicensing approach. If they were seeking consensus, it
would imply they are willing, at least in principle, to shift their
position. With ODbL and CTs in their "final" version, I don't think that
is the case.
Brendan Morley
Oh well, what can you do?
What's in the Rules of the OSMF? Is it simply a matter for their
management committee?
Can you nominate for an OSMF MC membership?
If I recall correctly, their Objects allowed them to persue a PD
instance if they so chose...
On the other hand, you have the legal right to fork the code, which is
the remedy I'm persuing.
Brendan
Liz
> Liz
> Is there an audit trail of that change? Can you point to a wiki page
> history or some OSMF or LWG minutes that document that decision?
>
> 80n
but from 17th October 2009 on OSMF-talk it was being discussed as a two stage
voting process.
Liz
doing so.
I'm still supporting forks (plural)
Liz
> Liz
> Is there an audit trail of that change? Can you point to a wiki page
> history or some OSMF or LWG minutes that document that decision?
>
> 80n
THIS LICENSE NOT YET AVAILABLE FOR END USER USE. We need to work with our
contributor community to get a critical mass to accept the new license.
written by Mike Collinson, 11th May 2010
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/About_The_License_Change#History_of_Acceptance_and_Implementation_Process
OSMF members have voted on whether they wish to put the current version of the
new license to the community for adoption and then begin the adoption process
itself.
By the 17th May it was changed to
"when a critical mass has been achieved"
which is an outright change of plan
but when we read the main page of the OSMF wiki
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/OSMF:About
"The Foundation does not own the OpenStreetMap data, is not the copyright
holder and has no desire to own the data."
all written in September -October 2009
and the role of members
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Membership
"Members of the Foundation are entitled to vote in the affairs of the
Foundation. They have no special say in how the OpenStreetMap project is run,
just the running of the Foundation."
written September 2009