There is a question doing the rounds regarding per-changeset relicensing, which asks (specifically) whether the ability to do this would allow people to agree to the new terms. This qualifier is more-or-less irrelevant. It would be a useful feature, but it is IMO nonsense to suggest that this would allow contributors to agree, mostly because it carries the inherent assumption that this is preventing them from doing so in the first place - not helped by the significant FUD being spread on this matter.

My comments to the survey:

This question is only relevant if having contributed incompatible data somehow debarred someone from agreeing to CT. It doesn't - any tainted data that couldn't be salvaged through negotiation with the supposed rights holder would have to be removed regardless of the wishes of the editor who contributed it.

This is by referece to clause 1(b) of CT 1.2.4:

(b) Please note that OSMF does not have to include Contents You contribute in the Project, and may remove Your contributions from the Project at any time. For example, if we suspect that any contributed data is incompatible, (in the sense that we could not continue to lawfully distribute it), with whichever licence or licences we are then using (see sections 3 and 4), then we may delete that data.

My reading of the spirit of the new clause 1 is that you agree to contribute "clean" (i.e. compatible) data, and that 1(b) would allow a shade for "tainted" (i.e. incompatible, or thence derived) data contributed in the past. The appropriate remedies would be either to terminate the agreement, or to sue - and to do either to a contributor who is willing to contribute original data is counterproductive.

There are experts who seem to know how to handle data which needs to go. Let them deal with it. Everyone else needs to stop worrying and get on with their lives.

Let me repeat again: having contributed tainted data in the past does not prevent you from agreeing and contributing clean data in the meantime. Anyone that tries to tell you that a little tracing or a samll import means you will be effectively banned on April 1st should be struck firmly with a clue-by-four. If in doubt, the route of "agree for future contributions" can be achieved for the time being by creating a new account. Earlier readers will remember this handy pull quote:

"Anyone that tells you that you can't create a new account to agree to CT is an idiot." -- chriscf

For anyone waiting for the amended CT, LWG minutes suggest that they are ready to go, but waiting to be pushed to live.

The moral of this story? This exercise is not as big a deal as some people seem to want it to be.