 | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Peter Howkins
|
| | | (...) No reponse isn't a response ;) but you cover it below in how they become abstentions. (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | (...) I agree with the timeout, and that the authors need to maintain their email addr on record updated. I'm not sure we should discount Peter's note though, that right now we're setting up a system that by default will accept change - that is not (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | | | | (...) That kind of makes sense. I'm writing a new CA draft and I'll take that into consideration. -Orion (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) Another thought - don't treat the 'no responses' and 'abstain' as identical. The actual abstain votes could be counted toward a total count, and the ayes would have to exceed a given fraction of that total. For example, we could require a 33% (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | (...) I think that's a good idea, and it makes sense to me. Abstain becomes not exactly no (since it doesn't count against the measure), instead it means "I need more information" - which is a valid response, IMO. Oh, and I agree that the checkbox (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | (...) 'Evil' is a bit too strong of a word here, and I think it's an unfair labeling. The checkbox doesn't say that the author (not user) forsees the changes they're agreeing to, rather it says that they put their trust in the SteerCo to guide the (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | (...) I was using Steve's word, but I believe we both meant it in the geeky sense of "should not exist", and not "is maliciously placed". Dan (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Peter Howkins
|
| | | | (...) I admit my turnout values may have been optimistic :) But I still feel that a greater than 50.00000something percent positive vote ought to be needed to move away from something as good as the ShareAlike license. (...) What, at the risk of (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | (...) positive (...) And I maintain, if there are not enough authors still active at a time this potential situation were to come up, It could be near impossible to make the change. If there were a situation where the change was needed, and there (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | (...) I think the key word here is 'active'. If the requirement is that some percent of the ACTIVE authors actually are for a change, wouldn't that work for both of you? Dan (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) I think you might be on to something. What's a good definition of ACTIVE? Some ideas I had: a) did activity x within the last y time periods (x could be any of authored, reviewed, participated in a discussion or other) or b) responded to the (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Kevin L. Clague
|
| | | | (...) <snip> (...) Quoting Yoda, "Hard to see, the future is". The ability to change the ShareAlike license is to hedge our bets against unforseen issues. If you are omnipotent (should I call you Q?), then you can see all forseeable issues and can (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Peter Howkins
|
| | | | (...) And yet you appear to be trying to write one, the contributor agreement. Although I don't have any particular experience in writing licenses, I have done a fair bit of work with them, at one point my company required me to read and understand (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Kevin L. Clague
|
| | | | (...) It would seem the general concensus that we need Licensing, so we need a license, even if it is hard to do. Agree? (...) Great. WHen you point out an issue with the license it is greatly appreciated that you provide an alternate solution to (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
