Subject:
|
Re: Moving the License Forward
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Tue, 13 Jul 2004 11:16:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2761 times
|
| |
|
|
Tim Courtney wrote:
>
> A majority of authors approving the change is required for the change to be
> enacted.
>
> Authors will be contacted and asked to respond to the request using any of the
> four available responses:
>
> - Approval.
> - Rejection.
> - Abstain.
> - No response.
No reponse isn't a response ;) but you cover it below in how they become
abstentions.
> All reasonable attempts to contact the author will be deemed made when there are
> public announcements posted on LDraw.org and LUGNET (where LUGNET is the primary
> location of LDraw.org-related public discussion), and an email message is sent
> to the author using the address on record.
>
> After sixty (60) days, if no response is received from the author, it will count
> as an abstaining vote.
>
> An abstaining vote indicates that the author will authorize his/her submissions
> under the new license terms. Abstaining votes will not count towards the total
> for which a majority will be measured. The majority will be calculated after the
> 60 day period has expired. A majority will be deemed reached if the number of
> approval votes is greater than the number of rejection votes.
I'm not sure I agree with a simple majority has enough weight behind it given
the
importance of the outcome of the vote. Imagine this outcome
Abstains 53 (mainly due to non responses) (Numbers very much made up :) )
Approval 7
Rejection 6
This wouldn't exactly be a ringing endorsment of a policy change.
I would like to see the enduser license being a difficult thing to
change. Something like 75% approval on a turnout of 33% (active voters
rather no response abstains) would at least confirm that those active
members believed it to be a good thing. Given how no one on the SteerCo
has yet come up with a reason for changing the EndUser license, making
it easy shouldn't be on the agenda.
> Authors may pre-approve LDraw.org to make license changes through a checkbox at
> the bottom of this agreement.
Once again I disagree with this. There should be no automatic approval of
all future decissions. This also seems a fairly cynical method of
increasing the 'Approval' votes. Would you also add a box on the CA
that says "I'll vote against changing from the ShareAlike license in
any future votes", it would even things out :)
Peter
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
| (...) Whilte you make a good argument, I think you're leaving out something. It's the author's responsibility to maintain an address where LDraw.org can contact them on organizational business. Plus, LDraw.org announces important things like this (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Moving the License Forward
|
| Everyone - First I want to offer the Steering Committee's apologies for the delay in moving this issue forward. We've spent some time discussing the license and now we are ready to present a proposed solution for comments and feedback. After talking (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw) !!
|
139 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
