From the article:
> Be that as it may, the project voted to change over to the ODBL.
No, the Foundation (which I believe has less than 300 members, and is a fraction of the contributor base) voted to proceed with the re-licensing process.
Since then there have been important changes to the contributor terms, more massive arguments, and now the Foundation Board have decided on a cut-off. The contributor terms still haven't been finalised yet.
What I see as the more serious problem, is that we're still arguing over parts of what the Contributor Terms should do. Not the legal wording, but what it should do - e.g. can you add data from a third party that may not be able to be re-licensed in the future?
(I was one of the handful of OSMF members who voted no to the current process)