[okfn-discuss] new brand, new website: coming up next week

Tue Apr 15 14:14:21 UTC 2014

Dear All, I am sorry I will not be able to participate in the online
discussion.

So I just wanted to say congrats to all of those who have been working hard
on the new website and logo, which all look great, but also wanted to say
that I shared many concerns over the new tagline expressed here.

In particular, I do think, like Tim and Peter, that the tagline is too much
focused on data and that it does not reflect the core purpose of the Open
Knowledge Foundation being a global movement of people opening and using
knowledge.

I went to the Open Knowledge Foundation precisely because I had the feeling
I would be welcome and could take part in that movement, and I could even
express my views - with facts of course - and propose new ideas. But I do
not find any of that in the new headline.

Best
Pierre

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 2:56 PM, heath rezabek <heath.rezabek at gmail.com>wrote:

> (This turned out much longer than I'd meant.)
>
> While I can see the critique that this particular set of decisions (the
> logo and branding) was made from within a hierarchy, I've also never seen,
> heard of, or run into an organization quite as functionally inclusive or
> permissive as OK.  A year ago, I was one of the first Ambassadors, and now
> we are many.
>
> In all cases, as far as I can tell, an individual or group can represent
> OK in their locality with extremely little oversight.  We do have to agree
> to a set of principles, but all in all this is one of the least
> hierarchical methods of growth I've ever known of.  I live in the US, so
> making my livelihood within the OKfn didn't turn out to be as practical as
> I hoped.  That didn't change my drive to be involved, because my own
> particular project still and always has a place within an org with as
> expansive a mandate as Open Knowledge.
>
> Here, (Austin TX), I finally have a collaborator on the major project I've
> wanted to do within OK all along (an open set of services / platform for
> facilitating long-term community collaboration and archival), and we are
> considering founding a Chapter.  If we do so, we'll be far away indeed from
> the OK leadership elsewhere, as are all Chapters now.
>
> Point is - This has its pitfalls, but to accuse it of being hierarchical
> seems unfair.
>
> It may be that in the case of OK central, they feel the most cohesive core
> activity they have involves data wrangling, and they want to make it easier
> to grow in that direction.  I was drawn to Open Knowledge for reasons
> having nothing to do with data wrangling (or rather, the data I want to
> wrangle is less of interest than the ways and reasons I want to wrangle it;
> I want to help people generate and create cultural material. I care about
> that much more than I do what governments are doing with piles of
> unstructured data, because for whatever reason, it's more empowering to me
> to do so).
>
> Over on OpenGLAM, (I'm a librarian, and my interest is essentially forging
> a new form of community library), the main focus is on pressing
> institutions to free up their catalogs of public domain material.  This is
> likewise different from my own primary interest in the potential generative
> power of libraries.  But it's a different focus from data wrangling, as
> well.
>
> Because of its name, Open Knowledge is destined to draw a vast range of
> interests, as they explore or advocate for different approaches to the
> sprawling Open movement.  (Some folks' main concern is a parallel
> definition of Open having to do with the word Libre.  Again, not my main
> concern but I'm quite glad it's theirs.)  This is a strength, and I think
> OK leadership realizes that ...  I doubt they want to kill the golden
> goose.  They just want to come to grips with a rapidly growing mandate and
> organization.  Or so I'd guess.
>
> For me, my bottom line is, "Do I still see a way to pursue and promote the
> approach to open culture that I am driven by?"  And, I do.
>  Organizationally, that's built in, thanks to the Ambassador / Chapter
> structure. The logo being made of data bars doesn't bug me.  I'm just glad
> it's an O.  ^_^
>
> A second, good, question is, "Does the new identity continue to draw in a
> diversity of approaches?"  *This critique to me is the much more
> important one that we be able to get to "Yes" on.  We risk distraction on
> nearly all the others. Because as the organization grows from here, so will
> its actual underlying mandate shift in that direction.  *If all you have
> is a hammer, eventually everything will look like a nail.  That is the big
> pitfall to be avoided.
>
> As long as it remains possible to pursue my particular vision within Open
> Knowledge, I'd be bound to remain if only to serve as a diversifying agent.
>  If divergent advocates depart, Open Knowledge becomes less and less likely
> to represent their activities (obviously).
>
> The community sessions are coming up, and hopefully another will happen
> which I can make it to.  I hope all interested take part.  I particularly
> hope the focus soon turns form cataloging frustrations -- particularly ones
> that are very easy to spend hours wringing hands over, like whether or not
> Open Knowledge is a hierarchy -- to proactively constructing a means
> whereby Open Knowledge as a brand *can continue to include a diversity of
> approaches most easily, but meaningfully*.  Therein lies hybrid vigor.
>
> See how Open Minds can Change the World.
>
> (That's not a practical suggestion for an out-facing logo, but a hope for
> our in-facing process.)
>
> - Heath
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:34 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk>wrote:
>
>> I've been honoured to be on the Advisory Board/Council for 10 years. I
>> have gained a huge amount.
>>
>> It's a good thing that we are continually reexamining our fundamentals.
>> But we have to be very careful. I don't think any of this discussion has
>> been specifically referred to the AC - it might have been useful to do.
>>
>> I make no comment on the logo - logos always generate irresolvable
>> discussion. I liked the old one. The new one has a hole in the middle where
>> Chuff can put her head. Bit prickly, but Okapis are used to prickles.
>>
>> My main concern is that the new brand may be driving the philosophy and
>> practice of OKF rather than reflecting it. We've struggled for 10 years to
>> try to capture what we are about. Our diversity is part of our strength but
>> it's fragile.
>>
>> The latest phrase I remember is something like:
>>
>> "A community making knowledge open and useful"
>>
>> The words aren't quite right but that expresses what I feel about OK. I
>> was happy with it. I've also taken part in the current review of the OKF
>> and found the 90 minute session very useful. We were able to prioritise and
>> the top of my list was "community" combined with the Open Definition.
>>
>> I am worried about the use of "data" in the new tagline. "data" is
>> impersonal and cold; "knowledge" currently relates to humans and is warm.
>> Although it's harder to pin down knowledge it's much more than data
>> hacking. (and I say that as a data-weenie).
>>
>> We have not, and I hope we never will, turn into a data organisation. So
>> please can we go back to knowledge?
>>
>> P.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:38 PM, heath rezabek <heath.rezabek at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> I'm glad for Laura and Rufus' willingness to engage in this exploration.
>>>
>>> We seem to know this much:
>>>
>>> - The logo is good to go.  Not everyone will love any given logo, but
>>> overall response is positive.
>>>
>>> - The tagline is contentious, mostly due to questions over how well it
>>> expresses the human and holistic aspects of our efforts.
>>>
>>> Two questions:
>>>
>>> Might the second tagline (Open Data / Open Minds) and the flexible use
>>> of 'Open _____' answer some of this?
>>>
>>> Can the process launch with the logo, while the tagline is further
>>> refined through community collaboration?
>>>
>>> - Heath
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, April 14, 2014, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There are many totally different ways to go with the tagline than those
>>>> I've seen proposed so far. For example:
>>>>
>>>> Open Knowledge [logo]
>>>> "Empowering people by freeing ideas"
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Heath Rezabek  //  labs.vessel.cc
>>> Long Now Foundation (Intern)  //  Manual for Civilization Project  //
>>> longnow.org
>>> Icarus Interstellar  //  FarMaker Design Corps  //
>>> icarusinterstellar.org
>>> Open Knowledge Foundation  //  Texas Ambassador for the OKFn  //
>>> okfn.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> okfn-discuss mailing list
>>> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Peter Murray-Rust
>> Reader in Molecular Informatics
>> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
>> University of Cambridge
>> CB2 1EW, UK
>> +44-1223-763069
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> okfn-discuss mailing list
>> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Heath Rezabek  //  labs.vessel.cc
> Long Now Foundation (Intern)  //  Manual for Civilization Project  //
> longnow.org
> Icarus Interstellar  //  FarMaker Design Corps  //  icarusinterstellar.org
> Open Knowledge Foundation  //  Texas Ambassador for the OKFn  //  okfn.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> okfn-discuss mailing list
> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
>
>

-- 
*Pierre Chrzanowski*
*Consultant Open (Government) Data*

Mail : pierre.chrzanowski at gmail.com
Skype : pierre.chrzanowski | Twitter : @pzwsk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/attachments/20140415/01e68a4a/attachment-0002.html>