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

Tue Oct 7 00:15:00 UTC 2014

Everton,

Thank you for your note.

Many parties rely on the Open Definition. Anyone is welcome to join in the
discussion which is public and occurs on od-discuss.

The Open Definition Advisory Council is responsible for maintaining and
developing the definition.

We can't know all of the parties individually so we reach out to the groups
we are aware of and rely on others who have a specific interest in the
Definition to join in on the public discussion.

The new version of the definition was discussed publicly on od-discuss over
a period of 9 or so months.

As chair of the advisory council, I feel that the process was given an
appropriate amount of time and that sufficient opportunity was provided for
feedback and collaboration.

Mainly the changes were to make the language clearer and to separate the
conditions relating to licenses from those relating to works but please do
read it to see the changes for yourself.

If after reading the definition, you would like to propose changes to the
definition I would encourage you to post your proposal on the od-discuss
list.

If you have suggestions on how to improve our process, we would be happy to
receive them on the od-discuss list as well.

Herb Lainchbury
Chair, Open Definition Advisory Council

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Everton Zanella Alvarenga <tom at okfn.org.br>
wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> od-discuss mailing list
> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>
>

-- 

Herb Lainchbury, Dynamic Solutions
250.704.6154
http://www.dynamic-solutions.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20141006/d9a2ba38/attachment-0003.html>