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

Tue Oct 7 03:06:11 UTC 2014

Just to clarify on everyone's posting and my part in this:

I do not think there is *anything* wrong at all with the updated
definition. We all worked to get a great result and it has *no *effect on
the significance, i.e. it doesn't change what is or isn't open, it only
works to make it more clear.

Furthermore, I only complained about the posting to the community because I
think we need a protocol that just generally announces things to the main
community list in a way that is clearly *not* anything final, i.e. I think
the internal OD discuss group should decide only to go announce the
progress to the main group and not unilaterally decide that the definition
is final. I just think that step needs to be part of the process.

That said, I don't think anyone would have any objections and there's
probably no need for that process in this case, it's just always a good way
to go, especially after the poor (and still unresolved) issue of rolling
out the data-centric tag-line.

Best,
Aaron

--
Aaron Wolf
wolftune.com

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Everton Zanella Alvarenga <tom at okfn.org.br>
wrote:

> Hi Herb,
>
> unfortunately I don't have time to read it in details, but I can check a
> broader community. From your previous e-mail, I understand changes are just
> details.
>
> If by public discussion you mean a specific mailing list about the OD, OK,
> I tend to have another approach. Since several groups and organizations use
> the OD as a principle to build their projects, maybe, at least,
> okfn-discuss and okfn-local-coord should be consulted before a final
> statement, because here we have, I guess, the main hubs for a more
> crowdsourcing work.
>
> I leave you and the board with this suggestion, no necessity to follow.
> I'll try to look a bit more often the public OD mailing list to see if I
> have time to consult the Brazilian community in a next opportunity, if I
> see it's necessary.
>
> @Mike: thanks for your explanation in the following e-mail. [1]
>
> [1] https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/2014-October/010607.html
>
> Tom
>
> 2014-10-06 21:15 GMT-03:00 Herb Lainchbury <herb at dynamic-solutions.com>:
>
> Everton,
>>
>>
>> Thank you for your note.
>>
>> Many parties rely on the Open Definition. Anyone is welcome to join in
>> the discussion which is public and occurs on od-discuss.
>>
>> The Open Definition Advisory Council is responsible for maintaining and
>> developing the definition.
>>
>> We can't know all of the parties individually so we reach out to the
>> groups we are aware of and rely on others who have a specific interest in
>> the Definition to join in on the public discussion.
>>
>> The new version of the definition was discussed publicly on od-discuss
>> over a period of 9 or so months.
>>
>> As chair of the advisory council, I feel that the process was given an
>> appropriate amount of time and that sufficient opportunity was provided for
>> feedback and collaboration.
>>
>> Mainly the changes were to make the language clearer and to separate the
>> conditions relating to licenses from those relating to works but please do
>> read it to see the changes for yourself.
>>
>> If after reading the definition, you would like to propose changes to the
>> definition I would encourage you to post your proposal on the od-discuss
>> list.
>>
>> If you have suggestions on how to improve our process, we would be happy
>> to receive them on the od-discuss list as well.
>>
>>
>> Herb Lainchbury
>> Chair, Open Definition Advisory Council
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Everton Zanella Alvarenga <
>> tom at okfn.org.br> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 Lainchbury, Dynamic Solutions
>> 250.704.6154
>> http://www.dynamic-solutions.com
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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/20141006/332c6e34/attachment-0002.html>