[OpenGLAM] OpenGLAM principles v.0.2. - input welcome!

[heath rezabek]

http://openglam.org/principles/


Some thoughts, for what they're worth!

This seems like an excellent foundation to build on. One thing I tried to
do was read with the eyes of an organization or institution that may be
reluctant or threatened by open licensing, initially.

Before that, two quick items:  "the gatekeepers of the our" is improper.
 And, it feels as if there's something missing between " to contribute,
participate and share" and "By open we mean"...  Perhaps just a short
statement of what the OKfn is and a declarative statement about how "open"
is a concept that's easily misunderstood these days, so what do we mean by
it.  Etc.

The meat of my feedback has to do with the potential of misunderstanding
our intent, tone, or assumptions when invoking a phrase like 'To be X you
must Y."

A lot may depend on our intended audience for this document; or at least,
the most frequent audience. Are we even seeking to sway reluctant
institutions? (Perhaps only in the fullness of time?) Is there a
management-level advocate at the lead of an institution reading this
document, or are we speaking to front-line advocates trying to convince
management? Are we providing a tool or backup resource for an advocate at
the head of an ‘early adopter’ institution trying in turn to convince
their board
or foundation?

Putting myself in the shoes of a reluctant or risk-averse institution,
there is something in the phrasing of “An OpenGLAM institution MUST…” that
seems more of an admonition than an invitation. This could backfire,
resulting in a reluctant institution to err on the side of caution and the
way things have been done, since they wouldn’t be sensing any backup coming
from our direction should the bold move (and open licensing is still a bold
move for many) be subsequently questioned...  or should some unintended
consequence come from the step.

As a small edit and example, while we may see these institutions as
‘gatekeepers’, which can be read with a sense of suspicion, our advocates
who are fighting the good fight from within these organizations may see
themselves and their institutions as ‘guardians’ or ‘custodians’ or
‘champions for’ our cultural heritage. They’ve committed their careers and
missions, often for pitiful pay and thankless cultural perceptions, to the
long-term preservation of the cultural record. Arguably one of the most
noble things one could commit oneself to.  Up to now, a potential reader
may even have seen their gatekeeping role as a necessary safeguard,
intended to protect the longevity of that material.

On the other hand, we could read with the eyes of a supportive,
sympathetic, early-adopter institution or individual. Even then, however,
we likewise have no reason to take an admonishing tone, but instead could
strengthen our focus on the benefits of open definition compatibility.
(While, of course, gently reminding them of the stipulations of the OD
along the way.)

“What does an OpenGLAM Institution look like?”

“An OpenGLAM Institution enjoys these benefits:”

“An OpenGLAM Institution champions these principles:”

So, trying other ways of phrasing that ‘MUST’ clause could be very
worthwhile, and should be driven by a determination of who our target
audience. Perhaps a version meant for active advocates and early-adopter
institutions, and a version meant for risk-averse and reluctant
institutions.

In a similar vein, I think we should put some cards on the table as well.
Again, this institution is considering what they may see as a risky move,
outside of the easy norm. Open content and licensing may be the inevitable
future, but even if so, we want advocate organizations to walk boldy with
us into a bright future. And an advocate will need to feel like we're ready
with support to confront costly, long-term, and stafftime-intensive work,
such as converting and liberating metadata from proprietary OPACs or legacy
record formats.

To help that happen, I’d propose a second section spelling out what kinds
of support and advocacy an organization could expect to receive from
OpenGLAM and the OKfn.

“Institutions can expect support from the OKfn and OpenGLAM in these
efforts, in the form of:”

"When challenges arise, the OKfn pledges to support advocate organizations
in these ways:"

We’re asking them to trust this process, or to advocate for this seismic
shift in institutional worldview.  What principles does the OKfn stand up
for, or what resources will we provide, in return and response?  What
support can the institution and our champion advocates, whose reputations
and careers within their organizations may be on the line, count on
receiving form us when challenges arise?

A section spelling out OpenGLAM/OKfn’s stake in and support for their
efforts should, perhaps, be just as confidently stated as the section
spelling out an institution’s stake in the effort.

(I myself would wish to see something regarding the potential long-term
activism of a CC BY-SA approach, but I realize that's a subtle debate.)

Finally, with all the above in mind, the hints that any organization
undertaking open licensing will need to brace themselves for the
reinvention of sharing and participation with their constituents seems like
a little too much for this vanguard stage of activity. New ways of
empowering community should be its own, positively-toned resource guide,
ready for them when the time comes...  Here it risks fading into the
background, as a murmur of vague uncertainty to any reader who's just
trying to weigh the pros and cons of what may be a great leap for them.

I hope I’m not out of line in suggesting a second look with these things in
mind. Again, this seems like a solid bedrock on which to build a strong
base of support and advocacy, throughout a wide variety of cultural
institutions with long histories of care and concern for the cultural
record.

We just need for them to feel as though they’re walking alongside us, as
peer organizations we respect and admire. And we need to be ready to walk
by their sides in return.

With admiration for what you're accomplishing here,


- Heath (Austin TX)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-glam/attachments/20130409/7603635a/attachment-0001.html>