2008/11/3 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
What's the plan for making a final decision? There will probably be too many people involved to ever achieve anything close to a consensus. Are you planning a referendum?
Yes. Note that the Board resolution on re-licensing specifically referred to a vote as a decision-making tool.
It will be the obligation of re-users to validate whether an article includes CC-BY-SA-only changes -- dual licensing should not be a burden on editors. This is also not intended to be bidirectional, i.e., merging in GFDL-only text will not be possible.
How will that work? If the terms of service have been modified, how does one upload CC-BY-SA only content without agreeing to those terms of service?
We'll just have to find a good wording, e.g. one that requires dual-licensing of CC-BA-SA works contributed by the copyright holder.
There needs to be some way for re-users to know what license things are under, you can't just leave it to them since it's impossible for them to find out if it doesn't say anywhere.
Any CC-BY-SA import from an external source requires attribution, so we may use this as an opportunity to standardize how we want to attribute externally imported content. However, I think we need to keep the obligations absolutely minimal: an author should not have to understand the meaning of dual-licensing in order to be able to import CC-BY-SA-only content.