[okfn-discuss] [od-discuss] Open Definition 2.0?

[Mike Linksvayer]

There aren't any intended changes in meaning. The upgrade effort started at
least 2.5 years ago, possibly before -- one message is
https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2012-January/000096.html -- in
order to make explicit some things that were implied -- make the definition
more fully understandable by just reading the definition, not also having
access to annotations or years of analysis of the Open Source Definition
from which the OD derived.

I have been pretty involved in the process and ran it during 2013. I
realized communication with broader OK and other communities was a problem,
noted in http://opendefinition.org/2013/12/28/od-2013/ (search for "regular
updates"). I admit to doing a less than halfway job on this item.

I'm glad if people are upset at not having more notice about the upgrade
effort, as that's an indication the definition is important for all. I
agree
http://blog.okfn.org/2013/02/13/protecting-the-foundations-of-open-knowledge/
think one most important role for it has been providing a foundation for
OK's other activities, keeping it on a fairly good path. :)

I see that Herb, the current OD chair, just posted about going forward, so
I'll stop here.

Mike


On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Everton Zanella Alvarenga <tom at okfn.org.br>
wrote:

> P. S. is there any relevant change that we should all be aware of or just
> details?
>
> 2014-10-06 20:07 GMT-03:00 Everton Zanella Alvarenga <tom at okfn.org.br>:
>
> Hi.
>>
>> In my opinion, important changes of the open definition (OD) should be
>> sent to the *okfn-discuss* and* okfn-local-coord *mailing lists, since a
>> lot of our is based on the OD.
>>
>> If that was not the case (I cannot check if there is some relevant
>> improvement now), I kindly ask for we have some extra time for we check
>> with our local collaborators at the open knowledge network for a proof
>> reading.
>>
>> If we don't have time for some reason and there is some substantial
>> change that affect all of us, well, patience.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> 2014-10-06 19:36 GMT-03:00 Aaron Wolf <wolftune at gmail.com>:
>>
>> I'm sorry I didn't follow up on it, but here's what happened:
>>>
>>> Over on the OD discussion list, there was a call for voting as to
>>> whether we had reached the final v2.
>>>
>>> My comment is here:
>>> https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-August/000974.html
>>>
>>> I never added my +1 (despite being perfectly happy with our result). I
>>> said instead that we needed to engage the larger list before *any*
>>> statement that there was any official anything (especially given the logo
>>> issues). Apparently, I was just ignored.
>>>
>>> I still object to the way people active on the OD list just went and
>>> said, "ok, we all discussed and worked out things, we're all happy, now we
>>> announce to the world." I was actually there to say, "no, we need to tell
>>> the broader OK community about what we've got and get feedback before any
>>> announcements otherwise" but I failed to keep bugging people about that,
>>> and I guess nobody else shared my concerns enough to reply to my post or
>>> otherwise do this the right way.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Aaron Wolf (just a volunteer who decided to help on the OD list)
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Aaron Wolf
>>> wolftune.com
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Samuel Azoulay <azoulay.sa at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I just noticed that the autumn newsletter of the Open Knowledge
>>>> addresses the launch of the "Open Definition 2.0".
>>>>
>>>> Either I missed it and I apologize if this is the case, or the whole
>>>> community has not been consulted or even informed of the procedure of
>>>> renewal of the Open Definition. I think this is unfortunate, especially
>>>> regarding such a crucial topic who contributes to shape the image of the
>>>> Open Knowledge by setting standards which are broadly used.
>>>>
>>>> It was apparently planned
>>>> <https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-September/001021.html> to
>>>> inform OK's lists (discuss, local-coord...) in advance but this has not
>>>> been done unless I'm mistaken (1
>>>> <https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-September/001021.html>
>>>> and 2
>>>> <https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/2014-October/thread.html>
>>>> ).
>>>>
>>>> Could you give us some news?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Samuel Azoulay
>>>> OK France
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *Samuel Azoulay*
>>>>
>>>> Twitter : @Sam_azl
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom)
>> Open Knowledge Brasil - Rede pelo Conhecimento Livre
>> http://br.okfn.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom)
> Open Knowledge Brasil - Rede pelo Conhecimento Livre
> http://br.okfn.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/okfn-discuss/attachments/20141006/2117dcb4/attachment-0002.html>