[od-discuss] Open Definition 2.1 vote
Herb Lainchbury
herb.lainchbury at gmail.com
Fri Aug 28 01:07:14 UTC 2015
"do NOT constitute an updated consensus... presumably that is what Herb has
concluded in issuing the call for votes"
That IS what I concluded. That and the relatively short time since my last
general announcement calling for final comments seemed to me to be
sufficient.
I concede that I could have inserted another notification round and I like
the suggestion from Aaron to insert a "release candidate" and have started
a thread to establish the process moving forward.
In the meantime, I am happy to continue to receive votes on acceptance of
2.1 dev. Whether or not the vote passes, I will take the opportunity to
establish a more rigorous process while its value is fresh in our minds. :)
H
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com>
wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>
--
--
Herb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20150827/4dc66b0d/attachment-0003.html>
More information about the od-discuss
mailing list