[okfn-advisory] Revitalising Open Knowledge and role of the Council
glyn.moody at gmail.com
Wed Apr 11 13:31:41 UTC 2018
Good points, good questions...
On 11 April 2018 at 14:29, Laura James <lbjames at gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark, Paul,
> Thanks for speaking with some of us today, and recognising how things have
> been, externally, in the last 3 years. Also thanks to other Council members
> for insightful questions.
> I think you should consider what you, as the leadership team, need or want
> from advisors such as ourselves. Both from what you said, and reading
> between the lines, you face fairly significant challenges, and so must
> prioritise with care. Attending to the Council may or may not be a priority.
> The Council is a mixture of more and less active 'open' leaders and experts,
> and Chapter representatives. You owe the latter some time and
> consideration, I think. The rest of us - most of whom joined before 2013 -
> may or may not be useful or relevant to the current state of the open
> knowledge landscape, and/or the challenges you face. If we are not all
> useful, I am not sure that you should feel a duty to 'repair relationships'
> with us - this is hard and time-consuming work. (Speaking for myself, but I
> am fairly certain also for some others, we would understand if you chose to
> focus elsewhere, if we are not what you need.) Also, are there other key
> people who are not on the Council, who could provide sage advice?
> If you want to work more with us, I am left with some thoughts/questions:
> You described the projects underway, but not the rationale for them. Are the
> current projects what you want to be doing, or simply legacy you are stuck
> with? Is there strategy behind their selection, or is it just 'whatever we
> can get funded'? Are there things you want to be doing, but need assistance
> to secure funds or partnerships? If so, could some of us help? (Some Council
> members, if willing, may be able to help repair damaged relationships with
> key funders or stakeholders, as they can lend reputation and confidence.)
> You described advocacy around open as being the work of individuals now
> around OKI and the network, rather than a core task. If this is still of
> importance, even if distributed and informal, what are the key issues or
> messages? If Council members wish to help, how can they get involved, who
> should they connect with? (Many Council members are open advocates of old,
> and this may be an area where we can assist informally with little
> investment from OKI, but to some good effect.)
> If the strategy is in flux, and you are reassessing the landscape and
> potential gaps or opportunities, that might be something concrete some of
> the Council could assist with, collectively or individually. As noted
> today, the movement has evolved and changed. Reclaiming the centre may well
> be impossible, but there are likely still some gaps where an organisation
> with good staff and long standing reputation may be able to add value.
> Good luck. Open Knowledge is a challenging thing to shepherd and support.
> okfn-advisory mailing list
> okfn-advisory at lists.okfn.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-advisory
Please use PGP key servers (e.g. http://kerckhoffs.surfnet.nl/) to
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
More information about the okfn-advisory