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

[Herb Lainchbury]

Okay, thank you.  That makes sense to me.

I propose we put together a simple page for this process, the "Open
Definition Update Process", like we have for the licence approval process (
http://opendefinition.org/licenses/process/ ) so we can be explicit about
how updates happen and are communicated.

Since it looks like we may have a 2.0.1 to consider soon it may be useful
in the very near future. :)

H




On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, Herb, thank you. I would call it step 4. Announce final-draft
> release-candidate to the main OK list (and assume there will likely be some
> questions / feedback to consider), and step 5 is then the final release.
>
> That definitely captures my concerns in a nice formal way, and if that
> model becomes the model for similar projects, I think we will be much
> better going forward.
>
> Thank you,
> Aaron
>
> --
> Aaron Wolf
> wolftune.com
>
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Herb Lainchbury <
> herb at dynamic-solutions.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Aaron,
>>
>> I am trying to understand your suggestion.
>>
>> Our process was roughly:
>> 1. discuss publicly for a year+
>> 2. a call for final discussion and additions
>> https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-July/000905.html
>> 3. a call for a vote
>> https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-August/000949.html
>> 4. a formal announcement
>>
>> Are you suggesting that there should be a step 3.1 where we make a
>> final-release-candidate announcement?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Herb
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think folks had assumed that interested parties would be on the
>>>> od-discuss list or read the announcements on the open definition blog.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think it just seems odd to me this conflation of "folks interested in
>>> participating in the drafting process" with "folks interested in seeing and
>>> commenting on a proposed final draft". This isn't about making anyone feel
>>> bad. We can go ahead and admit that folks did not do their best and still
>>> acknowledge all the great work. The point is to learn lessons and improve
>>> going forward.
>>>
>>> If I seem frustrated, it's because lessons *should* have been learned
>>> from the roll-out of the tagline. Given that history, folks who felt ok
>>> posting the final announcement to the list without posting a
>>> final-draft-candidate first did *not do their best*. I wouldn't try to
>>> emphasize that if it weren't asserted otherwise.
>>>
>>> We need a general cultural standard that we always consider
>>> final-release-candidate announcements and not skip that in favor of jumping
>>> to final-release. And things that emphasize how great the process was in
>>> response to this concern seem to be efforts to downplay this. I didn't want
>>> a long thread, I just want others to say, "yeah, that's what we should have
>>> done and should do in the future".
>>>
>>> Respectfully,
>>> Aaron
>>>
>>> --
>>> Aaron Wolf
>>> wolftune.com
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>


-- 

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/20141007/43fce71e/attachment-0003.html>