[od-discuss] Open Definition 2.1 vote
Herb Lainchbury
herb at dynamic-solutions.com
Wed Aug 26 20:04:11 UTC 2015
I am attempting to follow the process we have documented on the process page
<http://opendefinition.org/licenses/process/>.
It's actually for license approvals but at the bottom of the page we say
we'll use the same process for Open Definition version approvals as well.
This seemed good enough at the time but using it now, I see that we could
benefit by having the Open Definition version approval process documented
separately, including a "release candidate" stage as you suggest. Unlike
licenses, we are actually the authors of this document as well as the
approvers.
I'll start a new thread (in the forum) to discuss formalizing and
documenting the Open Definition version approval process.
Thank you for the vote.
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at riseup.net> wrote:
> 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
>
--
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/cc2c1246/attachment-0003.html>
More information about the od-discuss
mailing list