Dear All, I am sorry I will not be able to participate in the online discussion.
So I just wanted to say congrats to all of those who have been working hard on the new website and logo, which all look great, but also wanted to say that I shared many concerns over the new tagline expressed here. In particular, I do think, like Tim and Peter, that the tagline is too much focused on data and that it does not reflect the core purpose of the Open Knowledge Foundation being a global movement of people opening and using knowledge. I went to the Open Knowledge Foundation precisely because I had the feeling I would be welcome and could take part in that movement, and I could even express my views - with facts of course - and propose new ideas. But I do not find any of that in the new headline. Best Pierre On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 2:56 PM, heath rezabek <[email protected]>wrote: > (This turned out much longer than I'd meant.) > > While I can see the critique that this particular set of decisions (the > logo and branding) was made from within a hierarchy, I've also never seen, > heard of, or run into an organization quite as functionally inclusive or > permissive as OK. A year ago, I was one of the first Ambassadors, and now > we are many. > > In all cases, as far as I can tell, an individual or group can represent > OK in their locality with extremely little oversight. We do have to agree > to a set of principles, but all in all this is one of the least > hierarchical methods of growth I've ever known of. I live in the US, so > making my livelihood within the OKfn didn't turn out to be as practical as > I hoped. That didn't change my drive to be involved, because my own > particular project still and always has a place within an org with as > expansive a mandate as Open Knowledge. > > Here, (Austin TX), I finally have a collaborator on the major project I've > wanted to do within OK all along (an open set of services / platform for > facilitating long-term community collaboration and archival), and we are > considering founding a Chapter. If we do so, we'll be far away indeed from > the OK leadership elsewhere, as are all Chapters now. > > Point is - This has its pitfalls, but to accuse it of being hierarchical > seems unfair. > > It may be that in the case of OK central, they feel the most cohesive core > activity they have involves data wrangling, and they want to make it easier > to grow in that direction. I was drawn to Open Knowledge for reasons > having nothing to do with data wrangling (or rather, the data I want to > wrangle is less of interest than the ways and reasons I want to wrangle it; > I want to help people generate and create cultural material. I care about > that much more than I do what governments are doing with piles of > unstructured data, because for whatever reason, it's more empowering to me > to do so). > > Over on OpenGLAM, (I'm a librarian, and my interest is essentially forging > a new form of community library), the main focus is on pressing > institutions to free up their catalogs of public domain material. This is > likewise different from my own primary interest in the potential generative > power of libraries. But it's a different focus from data wrangling, as > well. > > Because of its name, Open Knowledge is destined to draw a vast range of > interests, as they explore or advocate for different approaches to the > sprawling Open movement. (Some folks' main concern is a parallel > definition of Open having to do with the word Libre. Again, not my main > concern but I'm quite glad it's theirs.) This is a strength, and I think > OK leadership realizes that ... I doubt they want to kill the golden > goose. They just want to come to grips with a rapidly growing mandate and > organization. Or so I'd guess. > > For me, my bottom line is, "Do I still see a way to pursue and promote the > approach to open culture that I am driven by?" And, I do. > Organizationally, that's built in, thanks to the Ambassador / Chapter > structure. The logo being made of data bars doesn't bug me. I'm just glad > it's an O. ^_^ > > A second, good, question is, "Does the new identity continue to draw in a > diversity of approaches?" *This critique to me is the much more > important one that we be able to get to "Yes" on. We risk distraction on > nearly all the others. Because as the organization grows from here, so will > its actual underlying mandate shift in that direction. *If all you have > is a hammer, eventually everything will look like a nail. That is the big > pitfall to be avoided. > > As long as it remains possible to pursue my particular vision within Open > Knowledge, I'd be bound to remain if only to serve as a diversifying agent. > If divergent advocates depart, Open Knowledge becomes less and less likely > to represent their activities (obviously). > > The community sessions are coming up, and hopefully another will happen > which I can make it to. I hope all interested take part. I particularly > hope the focus soon turns form cataloging frustrations -- particularly ones > that are very easy to spend hours wringing hands over, like whether or not > Open Knowledge is a hierarchy -- to proactively constructing a means > whereby Open Knowledge as a brand *can continue to include a diversity of > approaches most easily, but meaningfully*. Therein lies hybrid vigor. > > See how Open Minds can Change the World. > > (That's not a practical suggestion for an out-facing logo, but a hope for > our in-facing process.) > > - Heath > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:34 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I've been honoured to be on the Advisory Board/Council for 10 years. I >> have gained a huge amount. >> >> It's a good thing that we are continually reexamining our fundamentals. >> But we have to be very careful. I don't think any of this discussion has >> been specifically referred to the AC - it might have been useful to do. >> >> I make no comment on the logo - logos always generate irresolvable >> discussion. I liked the old one. The new one has a hole in the middle where >> Chuff can put her head. Bit prickly, but Okapis are used to prickles. >> >> My main concern is that the new brand may be driving the philosophy and >> practice of OKF rather than reflecting it. We've struggled for 10 years to >> try to capture what we are about. Our diversity is part of our strength but >> it's fragile. >> >> The latest phrase I remember is something like: >> >> "A community making knowledge open and useful" >> >> The words aren't quite right but that expresses what I feel about OK. I >> was happy with it. I've also taken part in the current review of the OKF >> and found the 90 minute session very useful. We were able to prioritise and >> the top of my list was "community" combined with the Open Definition. >> >> I am worried about the use of "data" in the new tagline. "data" is >> impersonal and cold; "knowledge" currently relates to humans and is warm. >> Although it's harder to pin down knowledge it's much more than data >> hacking. (and I say that as a data-weenie). >> >> We have not, and I hope we never will, turn into a data organisation. So >> please can we go back to knowledge? >> >> P. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:38 PM, heath rezabek >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> I'm glad for Laura and Rufus' willingness to engage in this exploration. >>> >>> We seem to know this much: >>> >>> - The logo is good to go. Not everyone will love any given logo, but >>> overall response is positive. >>> >>> - The tagline is contentious, mostly due to questions over how well it >>> expresses the human and holistic aspects of our efforts. >>> >>> Two questions: >>> >>> Might the second tagline (Open Data / Open Minds) and the flexible use >>> of 'Open _____' answer some of this? >>> >>> Can the process launch with the logo, while the tagline is further >>> refined through community collaboration? >>> >>> - Heath >>> >>> >>> On Monday, April 14, 2014, Aaron Wolf <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> There are many totally different ways to go with the tagline than those >>>> I've seen proposed so far. For example: >>>> >>>> Open Knowledge [logo] >>>> "Empowering people by freeing ideas" >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Heath Rezabek // labs.vessel.cc >>> Long Now Foundation (Intern) // Manual for Civilization Project // >>> longnow.org >>> Icarus Interstellar // FarMaker Design Corps // >>> icarusinterstellar.org >>> Open Knowledge Foundation // Texas Ambassador for the OKFn // >>> okfn.org >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> okfn-discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Peter Murray-Rust >> Reader in Molecular Informatics >> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry >> University of Cambridge >> CB2 1EW, UK >> +44-1223-763069 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> okfn-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss >> >> > > > -- > Heath Rezabek // labs.vessel.cc > Long Now Foundation (Intern) // Manual for Civilization Project // > longnow.org > Icarus Interstellar // FarMaker Design Corps // icarusinterstellar.org > Open Knowledge Foundation // Texas Ambassador for the OKFn // okfn.org > > > _______________________________________________ > okfn-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss > > -- *Pierre Chrzanowski* *Consultant Open (Government) Data* Mail : [email protected] Skype : pierre.chrzanowski | Twitter : @pzwsk
_______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
