> Bryan, thanks--some thought provoking comments! Maybe it's time to take another run at defining "open"--updating the concept in light of some of these conversations, and your several points? Do all our Ambassadors hold today to a common definition? (Could be buried in some other thoughtful email string that I missed--if so, mea culpa).
Eekers. That's a tall order indeed. I'll let others weigh in to decide whether that's something we wish to tackle. In the meantime, I'll just say that I find "defining" open much less interesting and useful than tracing/tracking how all sorts of "kinds" of openness (different definitions and deployments, if you will) get put to work in everyday discussions and decisions. Maybe put a bit more simply: I'm more interested in how and why different groups/actors define "open" in the way(s) they do, and what they hope to accomplish and/or authorize by doing so. BB _______________________________________________ Openorg-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/openorg-list
