Yes agree-- but if at some point we see enough examples there should be some kind of emerging definition, no? On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 3:13 PM Bryan Behrenshausen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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 > -- Sent from Gmail Mobile
_______________________________________________ Openorg-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/openorg-list
