Talk:Asking users to accept the ODbL

Can't you just wait for the LWG activists to send the email about it, when they are ready to do so? Alv 06:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it’s never to early to write to some users. And as I’m not the only one, I want to reduce the double mailings to some users with this list. Wicking 20:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Users don't need to accept the ODbL, they need to accept the Contributor Terms, which still are not finalised. --Drlizau 00:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but they need to accept, that they will relicence their data under ODbL. Wicking 20:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

and as the CTs aren't finalised why pester people now? --Drlizau 22:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Responses other than Yes

Why can't we record responses other than yes? For example one user has said he won't accept the terms until the final phase, though he is also willing to license his contributions as ODbL, allowing others to "launder" his contributions. I think there is a place for these more nuanced responses. At the very least we should allow for "Other" to indicate that the person responded, but not with a simple yes or no. -- Joshdoe 15:32, 21 July 2011 (BST)

Initially, when User:Wicking started this page, he did give more detailed information on the responses, like "has reasons for not accepting", "is still unsure" etc., which triggered a heated discussion on the German forum. One important argument against giving such details was (and still is) the private nature of the communication: The response which was given to you via private message should not be made public without explicit consent of the other mapper. But if the mapper wants to state his opinion publicly, he/she can (i.e. should) use their user profile page.

We are trying to contact mappers who have not made a decision because they are unaware of the process or of the importance of them making a decision about their contributions. If you have received an answer to your message, it is clear that the mapper has been informed and need not be contacted (=bothered) by others again. That is all we need to know. As said above, the best place for someone to state their opinion, uncertainty or whatever, is their user profile.

The coordination of "remapping activities" is not the purpose of this page. If a mapper from your region has not made a decision yet, but is registered here as "yes", you should consider asking the person directly before replacing their contributions, which, as the example you gave, may be unnecessary in some cases. -- Oli-Wan 14:55, 5 August 2011 (BST)

At least "declined" should be a valid information in this column as it is available on the user page. Currently it have put "yes", too, because having declined definitely is a case of "obviously knows about the licence change". G0ldfish 09:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I have, in fact, gone back to the distinction between "yes" and "declined" in the subpage I've created. I think that having this distinction is both useful and does not impinge on privacy as the nature of the response is visible on the contributor's map profile page (undecided, accepted, declined being the three values). I do agree that additional information, "nuanced" info as indicated above, wouldn't be good and I agree with not putting forth the content of private communications to this page. Hope this compromise among the various positions is generally acceptable. If not, the 'declined' names are easily re-merged with the rest of the names in the 'responders' subpage. I will shortly revise the instruction to match this compromise position. --Ceyockey 16:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Outdated list

Should we remove users from this list who have already agreed to the ODbL? The list is getting pretty long now. [stw, 7 Aug 2011]

Well, this list is intended to record all those users who have been mailed by some individuals to accept the ODBL/CT. We would lose this record, if we delete older entries. I have arranged the list into groups of one month each, to make it better manageable. We can rearrange the list to record newest first, if enough people think this is a better approach. --EvanE (7. Aug 2011, 18:12 UTC)

First I'd like to know why the length of the list is a problem. In my opinion, it works well as it is. I also don't see the point in inverting the list order - if you want newest first, just go to the end of the page (Ctrl+End or whatever) and scroll up instead of down. --Tordanik 19:44, 7 August 2011 (BST)

I don't care wether this list is sorted newest first or not. I offerd this as a service if people say newest first is better. If so I can rearrange the list actual month first and rearrange the list of the actual month with newest entry first. This is a matter of some minutes. If no one wants it arranged newest first, then I will do nothing on that matter. --EvanE 01:33, 9 August 2011 (BST)

Moving this out of the wiki

This list will only be getting longer and longer, making it cumbersome to search and edit. Has anyone considered creating a simple web service to host this information? It could have a very simply REST API for adding and checking requests and responses. Perhaps we could discuss such a design here or on the dev list. -- Joshdoe 13:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It would already help a lot to move those who have agreed already to a separate list (or remove them from the list completely, for all I care). They are not in danger of being contacted multiple times anyway. -- Oli-Wan 10:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I would also vote for removing those who have agreed from the list. I don't see any benefit in keeping the information that a certain user has agreed (as we all have), just a little bit later. G0ldfish 11:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that people who have responded could be collated into a couple of simple lists, which would reduce the size of their contribution to the page considerably. In fact ... I am feeling bold.... --Ceyockey 00:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have removed users who had already accepted from the lists and linked user names to user pages.

I'm not yet sure how to handle duplicate entries (users who have been asked more then once). While this should not happen at all with users who are already aware of the license change, there may be good reason in other cases. Should these duplicate entries rather be merged into one (with two dates) or left seperated? To me, the former seems more easy to handle. G0ldfish 11:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Imo it doesn't make much of a difference, so I'm fine with it either way. I find it somewhat easier to leave them separate, though, as it means having to edit only one section of the page when mailing multiple users. --Tordanik 14:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, with new entries, you'd still need to edit only one section: the month when the user has first been contacted. Plus you need to edit two sections to remove users who have agreed. But I think it will do as is for the last 4 month until the license change finally will take place. G0ldfish 10:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added a "jump to Jan 2012 table" link in the instructions at top. This will need to be updated for February, March, etc. but I think it is a useful shortcut for people given the page's length. --Ceyockey 16:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

After 1st April

Why is the last month march 2012? Is it not possible to agree anymore? I want to contact some mappers of my region, but don't know if this would be sensefull. --Theonlytruth 08:17, 25 May 2012 (BST)

Mappers can still agree --Firefishy 10:07, 25 May 2012 (BST)