[od-discuss] Open Definition 2.1 vote

Wed Aug 26 16:50:26 UTC 2015

Thank you for your comments Aaron.

I reviewed your PR, and recognize the grammar issue you've identified here
but think that your suggested fix may in fact change the meaning, so I'm
still thinking about what to do about it.

For your concern about the use of the article "a" - it seems to me that the
current version is clear but could be improved.  I'm fine with deferring
that to a future release.

I noticed your suggestion to remove the word "individual" but since there
was no associated PR I left it as is.  I don't currently see the importance
of that removal so didn't do the PR myself.  I could have commented...  my
apologies for not doing so.

2.1.3 suggestion - great, let's do that in a future release

2.1.4 suggestion - again, good suggestion for a future release.

Your suggestion to change the OD approval process is well taken.  The
(undocumented) process I am following right now included a notification to
the main list that we are in the final stages.  Anyone who wants to comment
can do so on this list (which some have done).  I could have perhaps done
another notification to the main list; however, it hasn't been that long
since the last notification so I haven't done that.

I like the idea of introducing a "release candidate" phase.  I didn't think
of it for this round and since we now in a voting state it doesn't make
sense to me to do it now.

I am happy for us to accept typo fixes a this point, but am going to resist
any other changes that have any chance of changing the meaning during the
voting process.

If that means the current vote for approval fails, then that's an
indication that the current final draft is not ready, and should not pass.
I'm fine with that if that's the outcome.

I am going to resist anything that I think will compromise the voting
process (like accepting content changes mid-vote).

I do appreciate your valuable input.

Herb

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at riseup.net> wrote:

> I'm almost + 1 but I want a couple clarifications, think maybe we should
> really fix these last things. Basically, I would *greatly* prefer a stage
> in which we say "vote on this as release-candidate" or something where we
> are saying no more content changes really, but we'll still fix up
> grammatical issues and minor items etc. — I want us to all agree that the
> content is fine without that same statement making the precise text
> absolutely final.
>
> A final review brought up some questions that I want clarified or fixed
> before I'll be +1 and I hope others will appreciate my concerns enough to
> delay their support with me to address these final items.
>
> I submitted a new PR just now for a grammar fix (not a content change).
>
> I somehow missed that in
> https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/commit/22a12d029a22f09310b7e38b120c712fcc6f19b1#diff-43c1b84a0e962cadb0bc57de43de4d23
> we added to 2.0:
>
> "A **license** *should* be compatible with other open licenses."
>
> The use of the article "a" here in "a license" strikes me as *very* odd.
>
> Side note: I'm mildly disappointed that my question about removing
> "individual" from the term "individual elements" in 1.3 didn't get noticed
> or get any replies or anything.
>
> In 2.1.3, "such derivatives under the same terms of the original licensed
> work" should that not be "such derivatives under the same terms as the
> original licensed work" (of -> as) ?
>
> In 2.1.4 "All parties who receive any distribution of any part of a work
> within the terms of the original license /should/ have the same rights as
> those that are granted in conjunction with the original work."
>
> Why is this a should?? For that matter, this whole second sentence seems
> extraneous and picky given the existence of 2.1.7
>
> Finally, I hope, as discussed in the issues around v2 that a supportive
> vote from the OD list on a final version means specifically that we present
> it as a "release candidate" to the larger OK community and absolutely *not*
> as a finalized set-in-stone decision. I don't want us to accept any final
> wording without having done the work of getting the larger community to
> have a chance to read the proposed release candidate.
>
> Cheers,
> Aaron
>
>
>
> On 08/26/2015 08:43 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > And many thanks to Herb and other colleagues for seeing this through. I
> > like the wording of 1.3 and 1.4 and think they read easily and clearly.
> >
> > I know how much effort it is to have to return again and again under the
> > final version works.
> >
> > The Open Definition and its process is one of the glories of the OKF
> > (aka OK). It's a model for something that is critically useful, boring
> > for 99% of people, but really important. Every time I hear "openwashed"
> > permissions (as in "Open Access") I quote the OD at them.
> >
> > It has magic powers.
> >
> > P.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Herb Lainchbury
> > <herb.lainchbury at gmail.com <mailto:herb.lainchbury at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     It is time to vote.  We now have a final version 2.1 of the Open
> >     Definition.
> >
> >     Much appreciation to all who participated in the various discussions
> >     and meetings over the past several months.  Thank you!
> >
> >     The current final draft can be found here:
> >
> https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/blob/gh-pages/source/open-definition-2.1-dev.markdown
> >
> >     At this time I am asking all advisory council members to vote to
> >     approve the current v2.1 dev for release and general use.
> >
> >     Please indicate your approval of this current final draft to become
> >     the new standard by replying to the list with a +1.  Please indicate
> >     your dissent replying to the list with a -1.
> >
> >     Votes will be accepted for one week until end of day Wednesday
> >     September 2, 2015.
> >
> >     Thank you,
> >     Herb Lainchbury
> >     Chair, Open Definition Advisory Council
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     od-discuss mailing list
> >     od-discuss at lists.okfn.org <mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
> >     https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> >     Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Peter Murray-Rust
> > Reader in Molecular Informatics
> > Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> > University of Cambridge
> > CB2 1EW, UK
> > +44-1223-763069
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
> --
> Aaron Wolf
> co-founder, Snowdrift.coop
> music teacher, 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20150826/93c79550/attachment-0003.html>