[od-discuss] Open Definition 2.1 vote
Herb Lainchbury
herb.lainchbury at gmail.com
Wed Aug 26 20:21:31 UTC 2015
I couldn't find one either. I have started a new one here
<https://discuss.okfn.org/t/definition-revisions-approval-process/1030>.
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at riseup.net> wrote:
> Thanks. I can't find it right now in the archives, but I distinctly
> remember you proposing and everyone agreeing about a process by which we
> do not just jump to final vote internally on OD like this. In the
> earlier discussion, you said something specific (distinct from the
> approval of licenses process) about the stages we would go through, and
> everyone (I remember distinctly Mike and myself) agreeing that your
> updated proposal for the process was good and addressed the concerns I
> had… Sorry I'm not finding the exact thread…
>
> On 08/26/2015 01:04 PM, Herb Lainchbury wrote:
> > 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
> > <mailto: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>
> > > <mailto: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>>
> > > <mailto: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
> >>
> > > <mailto: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>
> <tel:%2B44-1223-763069>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Aaron Wolf
> > > co-founder, Snowdrift.coop
> > > music teacher, wolftune.com <http://wolftune.com>
> > <http://wolftune.com>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Herb Lainchbury, Dynamic Solutions
> > > 250.704.6154 <tel:250.704.6154>
> > > http://www.dynamic-solutions.com
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Aaron Wolf
> > co-founder, Snowdrift.coop
> > music teacher, wolftune.com <http://wolftune.com>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Herb Lainchbury, Dynamic Solutions
> > 250.704.6154
> > http://www.dynamic-solutions.com
> >
>
> --
> Aaron Wolf
> co-founder, Snowdrift.coop
> music teacher, wolftune.com
>
--
--
Herb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20150826/14f333b9/attachment-0003.html>
More information about the od-discuss
mailing list