[okfn-advisory] Open Knowledge positioning

Sun Mar 1 02:41:27 UTC 2015

We faced the same thing at InternetNZ (we have the delegation for .nz and
use the profits for community grants, outreach, and policy work): there's a
lot that needs to be done around "the Internet" but, as a small
organisation, if we try to do it all then we'll end up accomplishing
nothing.

The broad advice is
 * identify the issues that you can be the best at moving forward (the
About page: networking, opening, monitoring, education, stewardship)
 * identify a handful of issues that are aligned: you need them to succeed,
but you're unable to focus on that fight.  Have a single broadly-stated
public opinion on those issues but don't become the primary voice for those
issues; identify an organisation to whom you can refer people seeking
detailed comment.
 * everything else you have to hold fire on to save your ammunition for
where it will do the most good.

Every organisation seeking to strengthen democratic governments ends up
faced with scope creep. Arguments like "but if communications are
tapped/DRM prevents individuals from controlling the technology they paid
for/women are not equally educated/homosexuality is forbidden/slavery is
quietly permitted/people are starving/... then how can you claim you're
challenging inequality and holding government to account?" are true at
their face, but it takes a cold heart and clear head to say "we need to do
one thing and do it well, and from there consider expansion; but if we
start out trying to do everything then we shall surely succeed at nothing".

Nat

On 27 February 2015 at 06:18, Daniel Dietrich <daniel.dietrich at okfn.org>
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I totally agree with Glyn that there are current struggles around several
> digital rights issues that will have significant affect on the work Open
> Knowledge foundation is focussing on at this times.
>
> I also agree with Laura, that we should remain having a focus on "our
> core" topics/expertise. But this does, in my view, by no means mean that we
> could/should not have a clearly expressed position on these other important
> topics. Although we might not wish to nor be able to take a leading role in
> each particular struggle (the later, I think, I agree with Hannes who made
> a point for focus).
>
> Again I think having a voice on other related digital issues doesn't mean
> losing focus. At this point I think, not all the issues have equally
> "direct affect" on our work/mission, e.g. privacy and surveillance perhaps
> have a little less direct affect than copyright reform, DRM or net
> neutrality (although I am aware that this is a terribly simplistic
> approach).
>
> At the end of the day the main question will be, how much resources we
> will be able and willing to dedicate to each of the topics. Why does the
> OKF not have a dedicated policy person on pay-roll? I think we should
> seriously think how we could cross-finance such a position to drive the
> agenda forward and have an adequate visible voice in those important
> debates.
>
> My2ct
> Daniel
>
> --
> Daniel Dietrich, co-founder & chairman
> Open Knowledge Foundation Germany
> www.okfn.de | info at okfn.de | @okfde
> Office: +49 30 57703666 0 | Fax: - 9
> Mobile: +49 176 32768530
>
>
>
> > On 22 Feb 2015, at 18:33, Laura James <lbjames at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Glyn,
> >
> > Thanks for starting this discussion!
> >
> > I'm quite torn on this topic, and look forward to hearing what others
> think.
> >
> > I agree the various 'digital rights' issues you mention are greatly
> important at the present time, and do intersect with Open Knowledge topics.
> There would be value in, say, advocacy work combining such issues, which
> would help raise the profile of the open knowledge piece with specialist
> campaigners in related areas.
> >
> > However, open knowledge remains a less well known issue than, say,
> surveillance, FOSS, and DRM. These other issues take (almost total)
> precedence for groups like EDRI, EFF etc, which is fine and understandable;
> but there are far fewer (civil society) groups pushing for openness. If we
> believe open knowledge matters in and of itself, then this is a message
> which needs spreading effectively and clearly. Open data, open access, etc,
> remain niche topics, little known or unknown or misunderstood outside their
> own communities. The misunderstandings include intentional openwashing,
> accidental misuse of the term 'open', and odd interpretations such as 'open
> data' being just about government data, or about economic growth.
> Broader understanding of the power and benefits of openness in a civil
> society context is essential to achieve our goals, and focussed
> communications will help here.
> >
> > Open Knowledge remains a fairly small organisation, undoubtedly with
> more limited resources than would be desirable. Focussing effort on open
> topics is likely to achieve better impact than trying to cover many topics
> with limited resource (especially as to be effective in each issue requires
> a level of up to date knowledge and expertise, which is challenging for a
> small team to maintain).
> >
> > On balance, then, I would look for focus on open knowledge topics day to
> day, taking advantage of opportunities with related fields when they arise
> and the capacity to do so is available. Longer term, with (anticipated)
> greater capacity and with wider comprehension of the basic message of
> openness, this could shift to more active engagement with and advocacy of
> related digital rights issues.
> >
> > Laura
> >
> >
> >
> > On 22 February 2015 at 10:47, glyn moody <glyn.moody at gmail.com> wrote:
> > During last week's Advisory Council call, one issue that came up was
> > to what extent OK should be taking positions and engaging with areas
> > that affect its work, but which are not directly part of it.
> >
> > For example, currently there are important discussions taking place
> > around the world concerning copyright reform, DRM, Net neutrality,
> > surveillance, privacy, encryption, open source adoption etc.
> >
> > My view is that these are so far-reaching in their impact that it is
> > clear their outcome will affect OK in crucial ways.  I therefore
> > believe that it is legitimate and even necessary for OK to join the
> > debates, rather than to hold back from expressing its views, and to
> > risk seeing policies being adopted that are detrimental to OK's aims.
> > However, others feel that this kind of engagement is not appropriate
> > given the overall mission of OK.
> >
> > This is to invite others on this list to give their views on this issue.
> >
> > --
> > Best wishes
> >
> > Glyn
> >
> > http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com
> > http://twitter.com/glynmoody
> > http://identi.ca/glynmoody
> > https://plus.google.com/+glynmoody/
> >
> > Please use PGP key servers (e.g. http://kerckhoffs.surfnet.nl/) to
> > confirm following:
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
> >
> > mQENBFGhDsEBCADEBwqPh44LHDeNRMnifk5RTXMBmG5cjtrKuwm69hecZmdxy0t0
> > wlr4DMeEW/4Dfo73CXbu6cIXPDwY49bxXuu54xuuAHGzcj2iYNvgnIKGz+wpLH/+
> > OV2hCo1hK47/VLv6dd00ZrqrOPFvTYP/Hd8MvlSL3hv/0xtE8BBbU0i4e8ipRWL+
> > 3oCMGPaGnBQnyQqT3lpqAkUkWGCk72lHhmG9VFcOvr/vbCb2NGEZ7HJH1FxpRRkb
> > j1aMKKQJZvN+YfCwLUALjtVfqVuYsGO75MbWqp3PfAekDgUAhjdhsL+29ltuKdZ0
> > qjAY/ry9sdUVFbFgQs/LCqB/uxC5OEFWYWvNABEBAAG0IUdseW4gTW9vZHkgPGds
> > eW4ubW9vZHlAZ21haWwuY29tPokBPgQTAQIAKAUCUaEOwQIbIwUJCWYBgAYLCQgH
> > AwIGFQgCCQoLBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQrmu000rVU2GGmgf+KDWRTSZ90kzJwdfp
> > byrx4kwdU6ZrxZyyKFvatdn8s23zA6cenwV34j+BUYHbwAoq1rpaLoR2aCgpXSUb
> > +LOjHWUtgx1hc4hqLGleQYQF7oUsnxt0Ma8Kg52umwW/SwYizBDidVhaj9sYsc71
> > 2f7YyGlRsW+/1pxAOJqfPqYQ61OCTHTzY+NTQVn/b+82BL+y4GBK0iND+SLX7RUU
> > WcwT/3nscwJvVBkaJALOdSUZE5R+fta++FooWEF4tyoTjhNosItQV4syVFqrVQhQ
> > hWUkdlCbifelCVMSxoB1vhVHLFB1MyHx93rIAAP6W44PRn6CVsuldxO2TCJrbbbS
> > Psc1DrkBDQRRoQ7BAQgAsdRrdFqHFC0+40zlJxpqtGEX/XgAnA1WawpMFS8ih0qi
> > opfuRno+LaC5sNkPlfMbw2VsQfdH8JJHzJHwcbT5+FHBGqEf6aqHwSRTZWtz1yCk
> > 8i+Ju/9GG4mD00fCxOlyfNIIzsjzSpXRzJsqdVmGCOd3dMLjC63rkybB6iUqmSuW
> > WuUA6LGT7oxiKXv/aQc2Khwt70He48XTqmO/u5244wLPm7p04UiZfctZUsw/OR59
> > G+yAJKvadTVMmc4Dwz05OiWiOVzuWkIQpkwEH7xTRt+gRccg6/5B82rB1RBKJ3+r
> > 1oqSKGNO9RsBVFk3HXpcloUgmT88VWAKMQTueedgUQARAQABiQElBBgBAgAPBQJR
> > oQ7BAhsMBQkJZgGAAAoJEK5rtNNK1VNhSPYH/3zpn+ZaPTva7RoBNZuLPHI09kcV
> > 7+x9iEhyTm02NjTX5+fvwL2yyijzqKOfc7F7bTLE9EQEINSMJwzioU9MwLjd4j7X
> > rN8vrhlZP3MgcNaXeN6+pfw7ROf53baE6qJ0smonwyoUwHD8ewFEpFUqwEcIohh+
> > QTlhisqjyOT9BgzOIjqbbNSkImaN68q6Z7ChiDVe07FDhbIgZXFhimP9nx8jvfrB
> > x6iWQeeCqOpWXOCzQDIUgMwsW6UGxRnaA3AsQzMh3uCvzdNmTJdCwW6Ek16Feac5
> > 3YO3YDOzxC1+HftgvxfD5Yu8/7vOh//DCZTUQGzNZ9NCPaaa7mCeOp+dDfY=
> > =wFDl
> > -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
> > _______________________________________________
> > okfn-advisory mailing list
> > okfn-advisory at lists.okfn.org
> > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-advisory
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-advisory
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > okfn-advisory mailing list
> > okfn-advisory at lists.okfn.org
> > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-advisory
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-advisory
>
> _______________________________________________
> okfn-advisory mailing list
> okfn-advisory at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-advisory
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-advisory
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/private/okfn-advisory/attachments/20150301/01ca062c/attachment-0002.html>