Rufus, Thanks for the detailed reply. I accept all of your points and this is not about personal issues.
I am still concerned about the idea of a selected group and how that works. It's perfectly fine for a select group to devise a proposal or a draft, but not okay for that group's work to just go live without first engaging the larger community. This was a similar problem with the Open Definition. It was a major mistake that the update we in the OD-discuss list approved was then put live and announced to the list as final. The same thing with the tag-line. Essentially, the primary complaint is that no major decisions that affect the whole community should *ever* be finalized by a smaller working group. The smaller group can internally conclude their work, but then it needs to be presented to the community for feedback *before* it is made official. So, my concern is *less* about the inactivity on the tag-line and *more* about the uncomfortable fact that inactivity means the see-how-data tagline by default. Similarly, it's uncomfortable that any inactivity on getting to OD v2.1 means that ODv2 as is stays default. In the case of OD, I find v2 to be all around improvement over earlier anyway, but I just don't like the nature of the internal group's decision jumping into default. Basically, I want the burden to remain on the internal group until the wider community seems generally to consent or at least have fully weighed in on such large community decisions. So, I would like the tagline deleted for now not because everyone agrees that deleting it with no other action is an improvement (although, I'm biased here, I think it would be an improvement) but because I want the group that works on the tagline to have the burden and feel that it is missing right now and something needs to be done. That is better than a situation where those who don't mind the tagline can simply be inactive and it stays. So, indeed, I've made my points about why I don't like the tagline. I'm not alone in my concerns. We don't need to rehash all that here. The main issue is a question of how defaults get into place. I'm suggesting that "we, this smaller sub-group did the work" should *not* be considered adequate to impose larger-scale defaults over the community. That justification should only apply to things that are specific to the smaller group itself. Respectfully, Aaron On 02/06/2015 02:12 AM, Rufus Pollock wrote: > Hi Aaron, > > Responding inline below. > > On 5 February 2015 at 21:29, Aaron Wolf <wolft...@riseup.net > <mailto:wolft...@riseup.net>> wrote: > > So, "See how data can change the world" is still an awful tag-line. It > > has absolutely nothing to do with OK projects like the Public Domain > Review. And so on and so on. Also, it was written with a gross lack of > > > First, for my part, I really welcome your continuing commitment to help > Open Knowledge get the best outcome here. It is deeply appreciated and > it makes a real difference. > > Given your clear commitment I would like to offer one initial > suggestion: that in our discussion we demonstrate (what I assume is) our > maximum good faith and assume the commitment of all parties to get the > best possible outcome. This also entails using maximum courtesy, > especially in email communication which lacks so much of the additional > cues available in other forms of human interaction. > > > community input. Today, it remains many months later on the homepage > because once you just do something, even poorly and undemocratically, it > is done and becomes the default. The burden is now on others to > change it. > > > I'd encourage moving away from some conjectured "us vs them" thing (e.g. > "burden on others to change it"). We all want to work to get the best > outcome here and to reach agreement - even that is agreement to an > outcome that is not our preferred one but is one that moves the > organisation forward effectively. > > That said, if it is useful to clarify, I shoulder full responsibility > for this tagline being there, and any feelings about the rights and > wrongs of the process leading to it. > > At this point, let's move away from the past and focus on what we want > to do here to move this forward - more below. > > Given a dramatic lack of consensus and serious concern about this stuff, > I find it troubling that topic was basically discussed just enough that > it was drawn out and then died down and no action was taken. > > > This is a great point Aaron and I take full responsibility here as I was > the one initiating that conversation and more should have been done to > take it to a conclusion (for the sake of context, the inaction from > early July onwards was due to the leadup and followup to Open Knowledge > Festival - I'm not seeking to excuse not taking this forward, simply to > explain this was not an intentional choice but an accidental by-product > of other activities). > > Because it does help inform us going forward, let me flag some of the > discussion from last June and especially: > > https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/2014-June/010435.html (and > following) > https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/2014-June/010450.html > (summary of input) > https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/2014-June/010480.html > > It remains the case that anyone who cares about something like the > Public Domain Review would look at okfn.org <http://okfn.org> and > probably leave. The > homepage clearly states that okfn.org <http://okfn.org> is just > about big data — which > might as well be data relating to tracking everyone's behaviors for all > a first look might interpret (rather than data from science and > government stats). > > > For my part, there is definitely no intention for this to be about big > data (people know my views there!) and that is not how I interpret the > front page. > > I acknowledge there is a greater data focus in the tagline (and perhaps > the page overall) but that is not about it being about "big data" etc. > > The work on the front page, as emphasized previously, was aiming to > present something that is simple, meaningful and understandable to a > broader audience outside of those already deeply interested and/or > knowledgeable in this area. Trying to encompass everything tends to > result in a smorgasbord effect which is neither very understandable of > compelling - at least based on expert input and general "guerialla" user > testing. > > > Yada yada yada. This was all discussed. If we can't get consensus on a > better tag-line, how about NO tagline? Instead have a brief paragraph > describing what the heck OK does actually or who it is? Actually, that > stuff seems present if you just scroll down. So just DELETE that whole > green useless section from the homepage. Oh, but please add something in > the bottom section that covers the sort of cultural stuff that Public > Domain Review does, since that's *still* absent (indicating OK's leaning > toward disregarding those areas, which I hope isn't going to continue). > > > Acknowledge this clear suggestion - which I appreciate you also made > last June (though not with the additional detail). Personally, I do > think the "vision" statement is useful. > > *However, given neither us are necessarily authorities on this I'd like > to get away from debate around our individual opinions and focus on > whether there is a suitable, simple process we could adopt here.* > > *To make a concrete suggestion: we could form a (small) group who were > tasked with making a decision here - with the group made of up of some > key stakeholders such as representatives of local groups and working > groups etc (and who could consult as relevant with experts).* > > All the best, > > Rufus > > > _______________________________________________ > okfn-discuss mailing list > okfn-discuss@lists.okfn.org > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss > _______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list okfn-discuss@lists.okfn.org https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss