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

Tue Oct 7 15:18:04 UTC 2014

Yes, Herb, thank you. I would call it step 4. Announce final-draft
release-candidate to the main OK list (and assume there will likely be some
questions / feedback to consider), and step 5 is then the final release.

That definitely captures my concerns in a nice formal way, and if that
model becomes the model for similar projects, I think we will be much
better going forward.

Thank you,
Aaron

--
Aaron Wolf
wolftune.com

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Herb Lainchbury <herb at dynamic-solutions.com>
wrote:

> Hi Aaron,
>
> I am trying to understand your suggestion.
>
> Our process was roughly:
> 1. discuss publicly for a year+
> 2. a call for final discussion and additions
> https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-July/000905.html
> 3. a call for a vote
> https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-August/000949.html
> 4. a formal announcement
>
> Are you suggesting that there should be a step 3.1 where we make a
> final-release-candidate announcement?
>
> Thanks,
> Herb
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think folks had assumed that interested parties would be on the
>>> od-discuss list or read the announcements on the open definition blog.
>>
>>
>> I think it just seems odd to me this conflation of "folks interested in
>> participating in the drafting process" with "folks interested in seeing and
>> commenting on a proposed final draft". This isn't about making anyone feel
>> bad. We can go ahead and admit that folks did not do their best and still
>> acknowledge all the great work. The point is to learn lessons and improve
>> going forward.
>>
>> If I seem frustrated, it's because lessons *should* have been learned
>> from the roll-out of the tagline. Given that history, folks who felt ok
>> posting the final announcement to the list without posting a
>> final-draft-candidate first did *not do their best*. I wouldn't try to
>> emphasize that if it weren't asserted otherwise.
>>
>> We need a general cultural standard that we always consider
>> final-release-candidate announcements and not skip that in favor of jumping
>> to final-release. And things that emphasize how great the process was in
>> response to this concern seem to be efforts to downplay this. I didn't want
>> a long thread, I just want others to say, "yeah, that's what we should have
>> done and should do in the future".
>>
>> Respectfully,
>> Aaron
>>
>> --
>> Aaron Wolf
>> wolftune.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/attachments/20141007/f0da3b85/attachment-0002.html>