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

Tue Oct 7 14:06:17 UTC 2014

I hope we can have a post announcement at OKBR about the new version and a
translation with the proper word we have been using to refer to 'open
knowledge', i. e., 'conhecimento livre'.

I remember I need to put the Portuguese version under version control.

T

2014-10-07 5:50 GMT-03:00 Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org>:

> 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.
>

-- 
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/20141007/8a485257/attachment-0003.html>