[Open-Legislation] Updated the working group page

[Rufus Pollock]

On 30 April 2012 12:31, JOSEFSSON Erik <erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu>wrote:

> **
> On 04/29/2012 10:48 PM, Rufus Pollock wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I've just tidied up the Working Group's current home page:
> <http://wiki.okfn.org/Working_Groups/Legislation> <http://wiki.okfn.org/Working_Groups/Legislation>
>
>
> Brilliant!
>

:-)


>  In particular I've added a revised Purpose sectoin based on an irc
> chat with Friedrich a few weeks. It now reads:
>
> 1. Define the area of Open Legislation - what it means and what it involves
>
>
> Your formulation is very good, and I think "collaborative work on legal
> documents" should definitely be within the scope.
>

Agreed.


> If we manage to licence at4am under AGPLv3+ and scrape (or otherwise
> export) complete EP datasets, then we could build a perfect clone on the
> internet, which in effect would be a "Parallel Parliament" where the debate
> on amendments and justifications could be long-tailed far beyond the
> Brussels Bubble.
>

Very good to hear.

[...]

>  2. Act as a central point of reference and support for people who are
> interested in open legislation
>
>
> Sure!
>
>
>  3. Identify practices of early adopters, collecting data and developing guides.
>
>
> I would push for EPFSUG here. The user group has been involved in
> ParlTrack and Pippi Longstrings in various ways and could potentially be
> tapped on info on how "at4am+parltrack applications" should look like to
> make sense and properly reflect the work inside the EP.
>

Yes, please suggest / point to good examples. We could even do a blog post
or two -- i know there have been a few on blog.okfn.org and elsewhere
detailing specific experiences that could be useful.


>  4. Act as a hub for the development of low cost, community driven
> projects related to open legislation
>
>
> I have a feeling things are moving a bit behind the scenes on these
> matters so I'd like to push for AGPLv3+ licensed projects as early as
> possible. It would be a pity if a successful project suddenly gets an EU
> grant but with an EUPL licensing condition attached (unless the EUPL
> Appendix is amended to include AGPLv3+).
>


>  What do people think?
>
>
>
> Brilliant!
>

Onwards and upwards. Please also do respond to email re virtual meetup as
well (if you are interested ...!)

Rufus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-legislation/attachments/20120430/ac69b3f3/attachment.html>