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

Tue Oct 7 13:52:20 UTC 2014

Following up Rufus' post, as much as I agree with everything said here, I
still want to emphasize: The primary responsibility to make sure outreach
has been done to those on lists that aren't the specialized topic should
lie with whoever is taking the actions to finalize / formalize / announce
overall.

Again, I'm *perfectly* happy with the OD update, but it seems unfortunate
that nobody on the OD list replied to my post requesting that we
*informally* announce to the main OK list before formalizing the update.
That I bothered to post that and nobody replied seems a notable
point-of-failure. It wasn't any particular person's responsibility to
reply, and, yes, I could have done the post myself. My point is: passivity
should have resulted in no progress. Something should be evaluated about
how this happened: a thread on the OD list asked for consensus and at least
one post (mine) brought up a concern instead of a +1 but then actions were
taken as though there was consensus and the first post to the OK list was
an announcement of the decision as already finalized.

Pointing blame isn't my goal, per se, but this would have gone differently
if the folks who took action to announce the formal update held the same
concern I have. My concern can be boiled down to: "The first post within a
decent amount of time to the main OK community list on any topic of general
community interest should never be an announcement of final decisions being
already complete." Basically, whenever a group like the OD list hits a
milestone of any sort (such as internal OD group consensus), the
announcement to the main list should be "the OD group has a consensus on
this update, but now we want to make sure the overall community is
comfortable before we make a formal announcement".

Basically, I'm trying to get *everyone *to think this way, and that will
address this sort of situation.

If someone wants to figure out how to make my ramblings more concise,
that'd be welcome.

Cheers,
Aaron

--
Aaron Wolf
wolftune.com

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:50 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org>
wrote:

> Just adding to Herb's comments - and I note the formal announce re the OD
> is planned for today. (I also note the new version of the OD is already up
> on the opendefinition.org site)
>
> On 7 October 2014 01:26, 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.
>>
>
> So I think there are a few points to be made here:
>
> A. As Herb and Mike emphasized the process has been running for some time
>
> B. There are no substantive changes (the text has been reworked a lot but
> there are no substantive changes to the principles)
>
> C. In terms of reach-out and consultation: the Open Definition Advisory
> Council do have representatives from many communities to help ensure that
> there is good input (disclosure: I'm on the AC). At the same time I want to
> emphasize that all AC members are volunteers and give generously of their
> time - the chairs in particular (Mike and Herb) have done a huge amount.
> Anyone on the OD list (including Aaron) could have emailed around to their
> lists (and mea culpa to me here too) so this isn't just something for the
> Council. I think the AC both had limited time/resources and thought that as
> this had been discussed on the public mailing list (and blogged on the OD
> blog) for 1y+, those who wanted to know or comment could have done.
> Nevertheless I think it is definitely a learning that we should try to do
> more emailing around in advance.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> That would be great and it would be fantastic to have people help out with
> translating the new version.
>
> Rufus
>
>
>> @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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> *Rufus PollockFounder and President | skype: rufuspollock | @rufuspollock
> <https://twitter.com/rufuspollock>Open Knowledge <http://okfn.org/> - see
> how data can change the world**http://okfn.org/ <http://okfn.org/> |
> @okfn <http://twitter.com/OKFN> | Open Knowledge on Facebook
> <https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork> |  Blog <http://blog.okfn.org/>*
>
> The Open Knowledge Foundation is a not-for-profit organisation.  It is
> incorporated in England & Wales as a company limited by guarantee, with
> company number 05133759.  VAT Registration № GB 984404989. Registered
> office address: Open Knowledge Foundation, St John’s Innovation Centre,
> Cowley Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WS, UK.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141007/c0221a2d/attachment-0002.html>