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

Fri Apr 12 12:31:51 UTC 2013

Joris et al,

It's a great start! I can't wait to see how it evolves. I want to give my
full support to Heath's very thorough commentary on the draft. He speaks my
mind. I'd add to that the following two points:

The "gatekeepers" statement in the beginning really rubs me the wrong way
as someone who's spent his life in GLAMs. It's not just improper, it's
inaccurate. All gatekeepers do is restrict access. GLAMs are in the
business of collecting, preserving, and disseminating culture. Gatekeeping
is a tiny part of that. Use of that word sets a needlessly confrontational
tone, especially in an introduction.

I like the use of examples in 1 and 2, and wish there was one for 3 as
well, especially since it's the kind of document most GLAMs will never have
thought of needing to write before. Who has already written good ones?

Keep it up!

Ed

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 8:38 PM, heath rezabek <heath.rezabek at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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)
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-glam mailing list
> open-glam at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-glam
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-glam
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-glam/attachments/20130412/03eeaa46/attachment-0001.html>