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

Tue Oct 7 14:04:46 UTC 2014

On 7 October 2014 14:52, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at gmail.com> wrote:

> Following up Rufus' post, as much as I agree with everything said here, I
> still want to emphasize: The primary responsibility to make sure outreach
> has been done to those on lists that aren't the specialized topic should
> lie with whoever is taking the actions to finalize / formalize / announce
> overall.
>
> Again, I'm *perfectly* happy with the OD update, but it seems unfortunate
> that nobody on the OD list replied to my post requesting that we
> *informally* announce to the main OK list before formalizing the update.
> That I bothered
>

Perhaps people just missed it :-) And one can always take the initiative.
People are doing their best :-)

> to post that and nobody replied seems a notable point-of-failure. It
> wasn't any particular person's responsibility to reply, and, yes, I could
> have done the post myself. My point is: passivity should have resulted in
> no progress. Something should be evaluated about how this happened: a
> thread on the OD list asked for consensus and at least one post (mine)
> brought up a concern instead of a +1 but then actions were taken as though
> there was consensus and the first post to the OK list was an announcement
> of the decision as already finalized.
>

Definitely good suggestions - though it does require someone to take that
initiative (amongst the other things they may be doing).

> Pointing blame isn't my goal, per se, but this would have gone differently
> if the folks who took action to announce the formal update held the same
> concern I have. My concern can be boiled down to: "The first post within a
> decent amount of time to the main OK community list on any topic of general
> community interest should never be an announcement of final decisions being
> already complete." Basically, whenever a group like the OD list hits a
> milestone of any sort (such as internal OD group consensus), the
> announcement to the main list should be "the OD group has a consensus on
> this update, but now we want to make sure the overall community is
> comfortable before we make a formal announcement".
>

Point taken. I think we all know that everyone did their best here - I
think folks had assumed that interested parties would be on the od-discuss
list or read the announcements on the open definition blog. Clear that more
pro-active outreach would be good (again would be great for people to help
do this).

> Basically, I'm trying to get *everyone *to think this way, and that will
> address this sort of situation.
>

Right, but we've got to remember that there are dozens of different groups

I'm very happy to say that I should have done more (as someone on the AC
and on this list) to share earlier on this list - as I said, I imagined
those who were interested would be on OD list (or at least keeping an eye
on the updates).

Rufus

> If someone wants to figure out how to make my ramblings more concise,
> that'd be welcome.
>
> Cheers,
> Aaron
>
> --
> Aaron Wolf
> wolftune.com
>
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:50 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Just adding to Herb's comments - and I note the formal announce re the OD
>> is planned for today. (I also note the new version of the OD is already up
>> on the opendefinition.org site)
>>
>> On 7 October 2014 01:26, Everton Zanella Alvarenga <tom at okfn.org.br>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Herb,
>>>
>>> unfortunately I don't have time to read it in details, but I can check a
>>> broader community. From your previous e-mail, I understand changes are just
>>> details.
>>>
>>> If by public discussion you mean a specific mailing list about the OD,
>>> OK, I tend to have another approach. Since several groups and organizations
>>> use the OD as a principle to build their projects, maybe, at least,
>>> okfn-discuss and okfn-local-coord should be consulted before a final
>>> statement, because here we have, I guess, the main hubs for a more
>>> crowdsourcing work.
>>>
>>
>> So I think there are a few points to be made here:
>>
>> A. As Herb and Mike emphasized the process has been running for some time
>>
>> B. There are no substantive changes (the text has been reworked a lot but
>> there are no substantive changes to the principles)
>>
>> C. In terms of reach-out and consultation: the Open Definition Advisory
>> Council do have representatives from many communities to help ensure that
>> there is good input (disclosure: I'm on the AC). At the same time I want to
>> emphasize that all AC members are volunteers and give generously of their
>> time - the chairs in particular (Mike and Herb) have done a huge amount.
>> Anyone on the OD list (including Aaron) could have emailed around to their
>> lists (and mea culpa to me here too) so this isn't just something for the
>> Council. I think the AC both had limited time/resources and thought that as
>> this had been discussed on the public mailing list (and blogged on the OD
>> blog) for 1y+, those who wanted to know or comment could have done.
>> Nevertheless I think it is definitely a learning that we should try to do
>> more emailing around in advance.
>>
>>
>>> I leave you and the board with this suggestion, no necessity to follow.
>>> I'll try to look a bit more often the public OD mailing list to see if I
>>> have time to consult the Brazilian community in a next opportunity, if I
>>> see it's necessary.
>>>
>>
>> That would be great and it would be fantastic to have people help out
>> with translating the new version.
>>
>> Rufus
>>
>>
>>> @Mike: thanks for your explanation in the following e-mail. [1]
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/2014-October/010607.html
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> 2014-10-06 21:15 GMT-03:00 Herb Lainchbury <herb at dynamic-solutions.com>:
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> *Rufus PollockFounder and President | skype: rufuspollock | @rufuspollock
>> <https://twitter.com/rufuspollock>Open Knowledge <http://okfn.org/> - see
>> how data can change the world**http://okfn.org/ <http://okfn.org/> |
>> @okfn <http://twitter.com/OKFN> | Open Knowledge on Facebook
>> <https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork> |  Blog <http://blog.okfn.org/>*
>>
>> The Open Knowledge Foundation is a not-for-profit organisation.  It is
>> incorporated in England & Wales as a company limited by guarantee, with
>> company number 05133759.  VAT Registration № GB 984404989. Registered
>> office address: Open Knowledge Foundation, St John’s Innovation Centre,
>> Cowley Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WS, UK.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>

-- 

*Rufus PollockFounder and President | skype: rufuspollock | @rufuspollock
<https://twitter.com/rufuspollock>Open Knowledge <http://okfn.org/> - see
how data can change the world**http://okfn.org/ <http://okfn.org/> | @okfn
<http://twitter.com/OKFN> | Open Knowledge on Facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork> |  Blog <http://blog.okfn.org/>*

The Open Knowledge Foundation is a not-for-profit organisation.  It is
incorporated in England & Wales as a company limited by guarantee, with
company number 05133759.  VAT Registration № GB 984404989. Registered
office address: Open Knowledge Foundation, St John’s Innovation Centre,
Cowley Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WS, UK.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20141007/3b7d632e/attachment-0003.html>