Subject:
|
Re: Moving the License Forward
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Tue, 13 Jul 2004 11:40:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2624 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Peter Howkins wrote:
> 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.
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
through the 'proper channels' like LUGNET News (or whatever primary discussion
medium in the future, which will be well known), and the LDraw.org site itself.
Again, if the author is so concerned with the license on their parts, its their
responsibility to be 1) reachable by the notices, and 2) vote if they're against
the change.
And no, I don't have any *specific* reasons for making a change in the future.
What I *do* have is an intense desire to not put the community in the situation
we're in today again. That means, we need some mechanism to allow the
distribution of the library to change (if it ever becomes necessary) while
protecting it from 'no response.'
Right now, as we move towards adopting a license for the library, technically
speaking we must contact each and every author who has a part in the library and
get an affirmative response from them. No doubt in my mind, we'll be dropping
parts from the library because of this - some have disappeared and won't return,
or won't return for a while. Users (thousands more of them than there are parts
authors) have invested much of their time into creating, archiving, and sharing
models that reference parts that _might go away_. That's hard for me to stomach
-- difficult now, and unthinkable to allow to happen again.
To reiterate, if the author wants a say, he/she is responsible for maintaining
an address where they can be contacted and checking it for notices, or keeping
up on publicly posted news which could affect their contributions. The time
period for making a response one way or another will be significant (60 days, I
believe, is in the current draft); which is plenty of time for someone who is
genuinely concerned to reply.
> > 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 :)
Now that I think about it, I suppose the box is unnecessary, as a 'no response'
is also a yes. I disagree that it's a 'cynical method,' though.
-Tim
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
