[od-discuss] Open Definition 2.1 vote
Mike Linksvayer
ml at gondwanaland.com
Wed Aug 26 20:50:08 UTC 2015
https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-November/001131.html
(proposal including application to definition versioning)
https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-December/001179.html /
https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/compare/6b116d3...ed1792e (commit to
process documentation)
By my reading we should still be at step 2 (summarization of consensus,
which for the definition is the working dev version, alert to broader
community) which should be followed by a vote after at least two weeks of
discussion, that is if no different consensus or need for further
discussion is discovered.
We were at step 2 two weeks ago, but that resulted in a different consensus
(updates to working dev version beyond typo fixes, see
https://github.com/okfn/opendefinition/compare/565785e...a05765e for the
exact changes), calling for going back to step 2.
But perhaps it is reasonable to conclude that the updates to the working
dev version since Herb's final draft announcement to okfn-discuss per the
process at
https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/2015-July/010964.html do NOT
constitute an updated consensus... presumably that is what Herb has
concluded in issuing the call for votes. :) If that's what Herb wants to go
with then I'm +1 on making the current working version (modulo typo fixes)
2.1, though I slightly favor thinking of the current working version as an
updated consensus that merits another round of broader community notice.
Mike
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Herb Lainchbury <herb.lainchbury at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20150826/1aa9898f/attachment-0003.html>
More information about the od-discuss
mailing list