On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Rufus Pollock <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think folks had assumed that interested parties would be on the > od-discuss list or read the announcements on the open definition blog. I think it just seems odd to me this conflation of "folks interested in participating in the drafting process" with "folks interested in seeing and commenting on a proposed final draft". This isn't about making anyone feel bad. We can go ahead and admit that folks did not do their best and still acknowledge all the great work. The point is to learn lessons and improve going forward. If I seem frustrated, it's because lessons *should* have been learned from the roll-out of the tagline. Given that history, folks who felt ok posting the final announcement to the list without posting a final-draft-candidate first did *not do their best*. I wouldn't try to emphasize that if it weren't asserted otherwise. We need a general cultural standard that we always consider final-release-candidate announcements and not skip that in favor of jumping to final-release. And things that emphasize how great the process was in response to this concern seem to be efforts to downplay this. I didn't want a long thread, I just want others to say, "yeah, that's what we should have done and should do in the future". Respectfully, Aaron -- Aaron Wolf wolftune.com
_______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
