Just to clarify on everyone's posting and my part in this: I do not think there is *anything* wrong at all with the updated definition. We all worked to get a great result and it has *no *effect on the significance, i.e. it doesn't change what is or isn't open, it only works to make it more clear.
Furthermore, I only complained about the posting to the community because I think we need a protocol that just generally announces things to the main community list in a way that is clearly *not* anything final, i.e. I think the internal OD discuss group should decide only to go announce the progress to the main group and not unilaterally decide that the definition is final. I just think that step needs to be part of the process. That said, I don't think anyone would have any objections and there's probably no need for that process in this case, it's just always a good way to go, especially after the poor (and still unresolved) issue of rolling out the data-centric tag-line. Best, Aaron -- Aaron Wolf wolftune.com On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Everton Zanella Alvarenga <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Herb, > > unfortunately I don't have time to read it in details, but I can check a > broader community. From your previous e-mail, I understand changes are just > details. > > If by public discussion you mean a specific mailing list about the OD, OK, > I tend to have another approach. Since several groups and organizations use > the OD as a principle to build their projects, maybe, at least, > okfn-discuss and okfn-local-coord should be consulted before a final > statement, because here we have, I guess, the main hubs for a more > crowdsourcing work. > > I leave you and the board with this suggestion, no necessity to follow. > I'll try to look a bit more often the public OD mailing list to see if I > have time to consult the Brazilian community in a next opportunity, if I > see it's necessary. > > @Mike: thanks for your explanation in the following e-mail. [1] > > [1] https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/2014-October/010607.html > > Tom > > 2014-10-06 21:15 GMT-03:00 Herb Lainchbury <[email protected]>: > > Everton, >> >> >> Thank you for your note. >> >> Many parties rely on the Open Definition. Anyone is welcome to join in >> the discussion which is public and occurs on od-discuss. >> >> The Open Definition Advisory Council is responsible for maintaining and >> developing the definition. >> >> We can't know all of the parties individually so we reach out to the >> groups we are aware of and rely on others who have a specific interest in >> the Definition to join in on the public discussion. >> >> The new version of the definition was discussed publicly on od-discuss >> over a period of 9 or so months. >> >> As chair of the advisory council, I feel that the process was given an >> appropriate amount of time and that sufficient opportunity was provided for >> feedback and collaboration. >> >> Mainly the changes were to make the language clearer and to separate the >> conditions relating to licenses from those relating to works but please do >> read it to see the changes for yourself. >> >> If after reading the definition, you would like to propose changes to the >> definition I would encourage you to post your proposal on the od-discuss >> list. >> >> If you have suggestions on how to improve our process, we would be happy >> to receive them on the od-discuss list as well. >> >> >> Herb Lainchbury >> Chair, Open Definition Advisory Council >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Everton Zanella Alvarenga < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> od-discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> Herb Lainchbury, Dynamic Solutions >> 250.704.6154 >> http://www.dynamic-solutions.com >> >> > > > -- > Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom) > Open Knowledge Brasil - Rede pelo Conhecimento Livre > http://br.okfn.org > > _______________________________________________ > od-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
