[od-discuss] [okfn-discuss] Open Definition 2.0?

[Everton Zanella Alvarenga]

Hi.

In my opinion, important changes of the open definition (OD) should be sent
to the *okfn-discuss* and* okfn-local-coord *mailing lists, since a lot of
our is based on the OD.

If that was not the case (I cannot check if there is some relevant
improvement now), I kindly ask for we have some extra time for we check
with our local collaborators at the open knowledge network for a proof
reading.

If we don't have time for some reason and there is some substantial change
that affect all of us, well, patience.

Tom

2014-10-06 19:36 GMT-03:00 Aaron Wolf <wolftune at gmail.com>:

> I'm sorry I didn't follow up on it, but here's what happened:
>
> Over on the OD discussion list, there was a call for voting as to whether
> we had reached the final v2.
>
> My comment is here:
> https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-August/000974.html
>
> I never added my +1 (despite being perfectly happy with our result). I
> said instead that we needed to engage the larger list before *any*
> statement that there was any official anything (especially given the logo
> issues). Apparently, I was just ignored.
>
> I still object to the way people active on the OD list just went and said,
> "ok, we all discussed and worked out things, we're all happy, now we
> announce to the world." I was actually there to say, "no, we need to tell
> the broader OK community about what we've got and get feedback before any
> announcements otherwise" but I failed to keep bugging people about that,
> and I guess nobody else shared my concerns enough to reply to my post or
> otherwise do this the right way.
>
> Regards,
> Aaron Wolf (just a volunteer who decided to help on the OD list)
>
>
> --
> Aaron Wolf
> wolftune.com
>
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Samuel Azoulay <azoulay.sa at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I just noticed that the autumn newsletter of the Open Knowledge addresses
>> the launch of the "Open Definition 2.0".
>>
>> Either I missed it and I apologize if this is the case, or the whole
>> community has not been consulted or even informed of the procedure of
>> renewal of the Open Definition. I think this is unfortunate, especially
>> regarding such a crucial topic who contributes to shape the image of the
>> Open Knowledge by setting standards which are broadly used.
>>
>> It was apparently planned
>> <https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-September/001021.html> to
>> inform OK's lists (discuss, local-coord...) in advance but this has not
>> been done unless I'm mistaken (1
>> <https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-September/001021.html>
>> and 2
>> <https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/2014-October/thread.html>
>> ).
>>
>> Could you give us some news?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Samuel Azoulay
>> OK France
>>
>> --
>> *Samuel Azoulay*
>>
>> Twitter : @Sam_azl
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> okfn-discuss mailing list
>> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> okfn-discuss mailing list
> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
>
>


-- 
Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom)
Open Knowledge Brasil - Rede pelo Conhecimento Livre
http://br.okfn.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20141006/4e146bde/attachment-0002.html>