[od-discuss] Open Definition telecon 15:00 UTC Thursday 2013-12-12

Fri Dec 13 10:35:50 UTC 2013

I was travelling yesterday and unable to make the meeting, but have a
couple of points after reviewing the minutes:
1. Repository merges.  I set out the steps needed to merge Clipol.org
data into the OD repo in this issue
<https://github.com/okfn/licenses/issues/31>.  I should be able to start
on this soon.
2. CC-BY and CC-BY-SA 4.0.  +1 from me.

Kent

On 13-12-13 03:40 AM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> Notes from the call at
> http://opendefinition.org/2013/12/13/notes-from-open-definition-call-december-2013/
> and pasted below.
>
> Apologies for getting at least the UK time wrong in the call
> announcement. Copy/paste/noreview-for-time-change error on my part.
>
> Mike
>
>
> Previous call
> [notes](http://opendefinition.org/2013/10/16/notes-from-open-definition-call-october-2013/).
> Next call 2014-02-13 (2nd Thursday of even months) at 15:00 UTC.
>
> #Participants
>
> * Herb Lainchbury
> * Tom Lee
> * Mike Linksvayer
> * Rufus Pollock
> * Andrew Stott
> * Kat Walsh
>
> #Agenda/Notes
>
> #Agenda
>
> ## New Open Definition Advisory Council chair for 2014
>
> Herb Lainchbury! As discussed
> [on-list](https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-December/000743.html).
>
> Herb stated eagerness to improve the approval process. Mike will send to
> the list lessons learned from 2013. Biggest impression was that approval
> process works much better when it is more: license creators engage with
> the Advisory Council during license development. When a license is
> "thrown over the wall", ambiguities not evident to the creators make
> approval difficult at best.
>
> ## Open Definition 2.0
>
> Walkthrough and structure of [current
> draft](https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/blob/master/source/open-definition-dev.markdown).
> Comments and action items:
>
> * Rewrite introduction, highlight principle anyone/any purpose, possibly
> scope some way other than defining "knowledge".
>     * ACTION: Mike to draft.
> * Each item in definition should begin with stating the principle of the
> item, full stop. Examples should be clearly non-exhaustive.
>     * ACTION: open for a volunteer!
> * Headings should be consistent -- now some are one-word, others more
> prescriptive on their own. All prescriptive is a good goal, allowing a
> skimmer of headings to basically understand.
>     * ACTION: Herb to attempt bringing all to consistent, prescriptive
> state.
> * Suggestion from Karl Fogel for an explicit statement about what
> permissions a license must require in order to protect licensee privacy.
> Discussion of whether this in practice is a license issue, or
> deployment/access/work issue. Registration/identification requirements
> seen in government data portals and their ToS, not quite the same thing.
>     * ACTION: Mike to start discussion on-list, invite Karl to elaborate.
> * Discussion of how to address [license
> proliferation](http://opendefinition.org/2013/12/04/open-definition-and-license-proliferation/)
> in Open Definition 2.0, which is most powerful place to make a
> statement. We want to encourage only licenses that are good for the
> ecosystem, but not go so far as saying that a redundant license that is
> unambiguously open is not Open. How do we encourage folks developing
> indended-to-be-open licenses to engage early in their policy thinking --
> before the actual policy is established?
>     * IDEA: Add a before-license-completed section to the [approval
> process](http://opendefinition.org/licenses/process/), encouraging
> would-be stewards of new licenses to consult with the Advisory Council.
>     * IDEA: Outreach to potential license stewards, such that they learn
> of the Open Definition process before they have completed their
> licenses. Nobody in the "open" community wants more redundant licenses,
> each with own problems. What can OKFN and other organizations do to
> inform local activists and other networks that potential stewards might
> come in contact with early?
>     * ACTION: Mike to start a thread on the list about non-proliferation
> of license(s) and how we might encourage the "right thing" in the OD.
>     * ACTION: Herb to propose pre-completion process addition.
>
> ## License review
>
> ### CC-BY-4.0 and CC-BY-SA-4.0
>
> No questions. Formal conformance vote will begin on-list in next day.
> The 4.0 licenses are much easier to read, read them:
> [CC-BY-4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode) and
> [CC-BY-SA-4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode).
>
> ### Alberta, British Columbia OGLs, GeoLicence V1.2.1-Open
>
> Revisit after release of Open Definition 2.0. See new on-list
> discussion: [Provincial
> OGLs](https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-December/thread.html#730),
> [GeoLicence](https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2013-December/000729.html)
>
> ## Tech
>
> Defer discussion to on-line. See especially Engel Nyst's contributions,
> including comment on [licenses and opendefinition
> repositories](https://github.com/okfn/licenses/issues/30).
> _______________________________________________
> od-discuss mailing list
> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20131213/28e21a67/attachment-0003.html>