Hi. In my opinion, important changes of the open definition (OD) should be sent to the *okfn-discuss* and* okfn-local-coord *mailing lists, since a lot of our is based on the OD.
If that was not the case (I cannot check if there is some relevant improvement now), I kindly ask for we have some extra time for we check with our local collaborators at the open knowledge network for a proof reading. If we don't have time for some reason and there is some substantial change that affect all of us, well, patience. Tom 2014-10-06 19:36 GMT-03:00 Aaron Wolf <[email protected]>: > I'm sorry I didn't follow up on it, but here's what happened: > > Over on the OD discussion list, there was a call for voting as to whether > we had reached the final v2. > > My comment is here: > https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-August/000974.html > > I never added my +1 (despite being perfectly happy with our result). I > said instead that we needed to engage the larger list before *any* > statement that there was any official anything (especially given the logo > issues). Apparently, I was just ignored. > > I still object to the way people active on the OD list just went and said, > "ok, we all discussed and worked out things, we're all happy, now we > announce to the world." I was actually there to say, "no, we need to tell > the broader OK community about what we've got and get feedback before any > announcements otherwise" but I failed to keep bugging people about that, > and I guess nobody else shared my concerns enough to reply to my post or > otherwise do this the right way. > > Regards, > Aaron Wolf (just a volunteer who decided to help on the OD list) > > > -- > Aaron Wolf > wolftune.com > > On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Samuel Azoulay <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I just noticed that the autumn newsletter of the Open Knowledge addresses >> the launch of the "Open Definition 2.0". >> >> Either I missed it and I apologize if this is the case, or the whole >> community has not been consulted or even informed of the procedure of >> renewal of the Open Definition. I think this is unfortunate, especially >> regarding such a crucial topic who contributes to shape the image of the >> Open Knowledge by setting standards which are broadly used. >> >> It was apparently planned >> <https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-September/001021.html> to >> inform OK's lists (discuss, local-coord...) in advance but this has not >> been done unless I'm mistaken (1 >> <https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2014-September/001021.html> >> and 2 >> <https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/2014-October/thread.html> >> ). >> >> Could you give us some news? >> >> Cheers, >> Samuel Azoulay >> OK France >> >> -- >> *Samuel Azoulay* >> >> Twitter : @Sam_azl >> >> _______________________________________________ >> okfn-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > okfn-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss > > -- Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom) Open Knowledge Brasil - Rede pelo Conhecimento Livre http://br.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
