Subject:
|
Re: Moving the License Forward
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Wed, 14 Jul 2004 19:42:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2934 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:31:13PM +0000, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Peter Howkins wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > 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 was this hurtle we couldn't get over (again, due to
> > inactivity), the community would suffer.
>
> 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?
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 last call for a vote by actually voting
or
c) either a or b counts
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
