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

Wed Apr 24 14:34:07 UTC 2013

With regards to whether or not to fork the document, my proposal would be
to go ahead and do that, and think of each version as a sort of translation
layer between two sets of possible stakeholders.  If nothing else, assuming
the principles aren't on a nearby delivery deadline, the process will help
the whole team to parse the issues at hand and the politics of the
audiences involved. (This would also let you take a long look at the
wikimedia manifesto by asking, 'which audience would something like this
translate best to?')

Every potential audience is both deserving of, and expectant of, respect.
 If that is remembered when phrasing to each audience, then helping even
antagonists to journey to becoming advocates will be a lot easier.

As a simple example, we could take the audience of sympathetic but
less-powerful advocates working on the front lines within cultural
institutions.  Curators, catalogers, etc.  What document would help them
advocate to an obvious audience for them: upper management, possibly with
dual or triple responsibility to their organization, their upper civic
management (ie city government, academic institution, etc), and then
perhaps their foundation or advisory council.

It's more work, but the attempt to draw up a grid with potential audiences
would be very useful even if it only resulted in a better understanding of
what a document had to accomplish.  Aside from hierarchical position, the
other important axis might be whether that audience type is advocate,
indifferent, or antagonistic.  Once a comprehensive audience type grid
exists, the team could then triage and say, if they had to, "Ok, of all
these, the translation layer between in-organization advocates and their
directors (or whichever) is most pressing, so we'll prioritize that doc
first."

- Heath

On Wednesday, April 24, 2013, Sam Leon wrote:

> Hi Javier,
>
> Excellent point and principles alone are not enough, but if we do a good
> enough job on the principles and there is sufficient consensus around them
> I think it's a positive step in the right direction allowing us all to
> speak a common language and link up the various initiatives and efforts in
> this space.
>
> All the best,
> Sam
>
>
> On 22 April 2013 11:42, Javier Ruiz <javier at openrightsgroup.org> wrote:
>
> Besides principles, any campaign or movement needs to have some theory of
> change and power. Who can decide on adopting the principles and how to move
> them?
>
> Many mid-ranking staff at cultural institutions have an instinctive
> understanding of the value of openness and access, but the boards are
> increasingly infested with corporate types tasked with looking at the
> bottom-line.
>
> The top level policies of GLAMs depend on other institutions. For example,
> in the British Library this is the Department (Ministry) for Culture Media
> and Sport, which sets direction in a 3 year funding agreement. There is
> nothing there on openness and very little on access. Dealing with politics
> is unavoidable at least in Europe where public monies provide the bulk of
> the funds. Maybe in the USA is about influencing rich philanthropists to
> include openness criteria in their grants and donations, as happens with
> research.
>
> Best, Javier
>
>
> --
> Javier Ruiz
> javier at openrightsgroup.org
> +44(0)7877 911 412
> @javierruiz
> www.OpenRightsGroup.org
> Winners of Liberty's Human Rights Campaigner of the Year Award 2012
>
>  On Monday, 22 April 2013 at 06:51, Estermann Beat wrote:
>
> Dear Joris,****
>
> ** **
>
> Finally I get around to sending you my comments about the OpenGLAM
> principles:****
>
> ** **
>
> I agree with the previous posters that the tone of the text should be
> changed: remove the term “gatekeepers”, try to avoid creating an opposition
> of “we” vs. “them”, don’t say “you must”. I’m also not so happy about the
> logo, as the padlock seems to imply that someone has locked the GLAMs up on
> purpose; this could be seen as an “accusatory” perspective, which we should
> avoid if possible. I’m not sure though whether the logo could easily be
> changed.****
>
> ** **
>
> Instead of adopting a confrontational, “content liberating” tone, I think
> we should rather explain how GLAMs can further they mission by opening up
> their collections. We should explain how a radical change in the area of
> dissemination of cultural goods can be to their advantage. ****
>
> We could say that there are first movers that have already adopted an open
> strategy with success; and that we are confident that many others will
> follow as they learn how to best make use of the new possibilities of the
> internet.****
>
> ** **
>
> What do you need to do to become an OpenGLAM?****
>
> 1.       Release the metadata under CC0 or similar.****
>
> --
> Sam Leon
> Project Manager
> Open Knowledge Foundation
> http://okfn.org/
> Skype: samedleon
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-glam/attachments/20130424/eed2fcc8/attachment-0001.html>