[od-discuss] Open Definition 2.1 vote

Wed Aug 26 18:13:17 UTC 2015

Actually, I thought we already agreed to do a "release candidate" style
process including a formal "this is the release candidate" post to the
wider community. I made a big stink about this with 2.0, and I recall
decisions being made to address this.

I'm surprised to hear you say that this vote is *actually* a "this is
the final 2.1" vote. I strongly dislike the idea that there is not a
time period with notifications between a *potential* final and the vote
to accept it as final.

In other words, there was not a post that said "everyone, this version
is proposed to go to a vote next week, after we present it to the main
list". I don't believe that the general community was notified to read
this *precise* version and given time to provide feedback or get
involved prior to your call for a vote.

I vote -1. I am opposed to immediately making this the final 2.1.

Respectfully,
Aaron

On 08/26/2015 09:50 AM, Herb Lainchbury wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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>
>     <mailto: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>
>     <mailto: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 <tel:%2B44-1223-763069>
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > 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
>     >
> 
>     --
>     Aaron Wolf
>     co-founder, Snowdrift.coop
>     music teacher, wolftune.com <http://wolftune.com>
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Herb Lainchbury, Dynamic Solutions
> 250.704.6154
> http://www.dynamic-solutions.com
> 

-- 
Aaron Wolf
co-founder, Snowdrift.coop
music teacher, wolftune.com