Telecon Monday

03 Jan 2014

Happy new years folks!

We have a telecon Monday at 15:00 UTC. (info below)

We lost some momentum over the break, so I recommend you read our previous minutes and the updated policy including the comments. I made some fairly significant changes to the policy including separating the RoD critera and process in to a separate document.

I think we have two key issues to resolve. These make up the heart of our agenda:

1) What is the default license for RoD (Note: I included a process to request a different license if appropriate)? We have not received much feedback on this issue, but Puneet Kishor from Creative Commons weighed in to support CCZero.

On our call, I would like to gauge consensus on the following approach. We use CCZero as the default for RoD and we write some explicit norms including attribution, share-alike, and a feeding modifications back in to RDA.

2) Guidlines for IP and sharing of "implementations". How do we start this? I admit to being at somewhat of a loss.

3) Next steps. Do we need more legal validation/review? Are we ready for member review? Do we want to send the policy back to Council first?

4) AOB

Meeting Info

 

1.  Please join my meeting.

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/465003005

 

2.  Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. Or, call in using your telephone.

 

United States: +1 (213) 493-0618

Australia: +61 2 9091 7606

Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 1036

Belgium: +32 (0) 28 08 4345

Canada: +1 (647) 497-9372

Denmark: +45 (0) 69 91 89 24

Finland: +358 (0) 942 41 5788

France: +33 (0) 170 950 586

Germany: +49 (0) 811 8899 6928

Ireland: +353 (0) 19 030 053

Italy: +39 0 693 38 75 53

Netherlands: +31 (0) 208 080 212

New Zealand: +64 (0) 4 974 7243

Norway: +47 21 04 29 76

Spain: +34 931 81 6713

Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 182

Switzerland: +41 (0) 225 3311 20

United Kingdom: +44 20 3657 6777

Access Code: 465-003-005

Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting

 

Meeting ID: 465-003-005

 

GoToMeeting®

Online Meetings Made Easy®

 

Not at your computer? Click the link to join this meeting from your iPhone®, iPad® or Android® device via the GoToMeeting app.

 

 

 

 

  • Larry Lannom's picture

    Author: Larry Lannom

    Date: 04 Jan, 2014

    All,
    Just reviewed the current docs and comments (good work Mark) and have a few thoughts that seemed worth sending:
    1. Licenses - whatever the default license I feel that requiring attribution is essential. I would certainly push for that if I were on the Council. RDA is young and regardless of how well we feel it is going at the moment its future is far from assured and we want it to get full credit for any output used by others.
    Also, in reading the very useful comments from Puneet Kishor, the following
    All,
    Just reviewed the current docs and comments (good work Mark) and have a few thoughts that seemed worth sending:
    1. Licenses - whatever the default license I feel that requiring attribution is essential. I would certainly push for that if I were on the Council. RDA is young and regardless of how well we feel it is going at the moment its future is far from assured and we want it to get full credit for any output used by others.
    Also, in reading the very useful comments from Puneet Kishor, the following
    > CC0 indicates a philosophical position that the conversation about copyright does not belong in academia and scholarship, that attribution can and has always been given as a scholarly citation norm without imposing any legal burden or uncertainty arising therein.
    made me ask myself the question -- is RDA an academic/scholarly organization? 'Scholarly' is a broad term but taken in the narrow sense I don't think that RDA can be characterized as academic any more than IETF or W3C or IEEE, etc. (nor would I claim that that is essential to Puneet Kishor's arguments). I really think we need more feedback on this, especially from more commercial organizations or institutions like like Max Planck. We don't just need low barriers to use, we need low barriers to participation in the first place.
    2. Maintenance - I don't think we know enough yet to nail this down with any precision. Ideally, the recommendations should be able to stand on their own for some reasonable period of time without requiring some process to re-examine them every month. Reagan mentioned a third type of group (WG, IG, Maintenance Group) and I think that is going in the right direction but I would make it a special kind of WG -- a revision WG for an existing RoD. Easier to create than WGs in that you don't have to start over with a completely new Case Statement, etc. And I wouldn't set it up ahead of time but let it arise as needed. If a RoD is in use, it will not be difficult to know when it needs to be revised. And the impetus should come from those who need the revision.
    Larry

  • Mark Parsons's picture

    Author: Mark Parsons

    Date: 05 Jan, 2014

    Thanks Larry.
    My thoughts on maintenance are that the approach will need to evolve and be rather situational.
    Currently, the RoD Criteria and Process says that a maintenance plan should say who does the maintenance: "A demonstrated community interested in the RoD is especially desirable. Possibilities for a maintenance group could include an RDA IG, an affiliate organisation, an ad hoc group that (re)convenes on a periodic schedule (e.g. annually), a new WG, etc.”
    We can add to this, but I see this porcess document being maintained by the Secretariat who can update it as needed without afecting the core policy.
    talk to y’all tomorrow,
    -m.

  • Anita Eisenstadt's picture

    Author: Anita Eisenstadt

    Date: 05 Jan, 2014

    All,
    I don't have strong objections to CC-BY-4.0 but am leaning towards CC0. I had a chance to speak with Mike Carroll this weekend and we are leaning towards CC0 over CC-BY 4.0 because it creates the least burden on downstream users. CC-BY-4.0 has the benefit of sending users the message that proper attribution is required but norms for attribution is a distinct issue from which license to select. Although we should encourage users of RDA documents to provide attribution to RDA and should provide some explanation of what the norms are for attribution and what type of attribution is expected, we don't believe that we need to use CC-BY 4.0 to enforce attribution via copyright enforcement. One of the group members also raised the concern about users revising RDA interoperability standards and confusing folks in the future about which version of the standards were adopted by RDA. Although this is a valid concern, I don't think that licensing is necessarily the most appropriate tool to avoid this confusion. Misrepresentation of RDA adopted standards would in violate other norms as well and could be addressed through those channels.
    Just a few thoughts.
    Anita
    ________________________________________
    From: llannom=***@***.***-groups.org [llannom=***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of llannom [***@***.***]
    Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2014 2:18 PM
    To: ***@***.***-groups.org
    Subject: Re: [rda-outputs-ip] Telecon Monday
    All,
    Just reviewed the current docs and comments (good work Mark) and have a few thoughts that seemed worth sending:
    1. Licenses - whatever the default license I feel that requiring attribution is essential. I would certainly push for that if I were on the Council. RDA is young and regardless of how well we feel it is going at the moment its future is far from assured and we want it to get full credit for any output used by others.
    Also, in reading the very useful comments from Puneet Kishor, the following
    All,
    I don't have strong objections to CC-BY-4.0 but am leaning towards CC0. I had a chance to speak with Mike Carroll this weekend and we are leaning towards CC0 over CC-BY 4.0 because it creates the least burden on downstream users. CC-BY-4.0 has the benefit of sending users the message that proper attribution is required but norms for attribution is a distinct issue from which license to select. Although we should encourage users of RDA documents to provide attribution to RDA and should provide some explanation of what the norms are for attribution and what type of attribution is expected, we don't believe that we need to use CC-BY 4.0 to enforce attribution via copyright enforcement. One of the group members also raised the concern about users revising RDA interoperability standards and confusing folks in the future about which version of the standards were adopted by RDA. Although this is a valid concern, I don't think that licensing is necessarily the most appropriate tool to avoid this confusion. Misrepresentation of RDA adopted standards would in violate other norms as well and could be addressed through those channels.
    Just a few thoughts.
    Anita
    ________________________________________
    From: llannom=***@***.***-groups.org [llannom=***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of llannom [***@***.***]
    Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2014 2:18 PM
    To: ***@***.***-groups.org
    Subject: Re: [rda-outputs-ip] Telecon Monday
    All,
    Just reviewed the current docs and comments (good work Mark) and have a few thoughts that seemed worth sending:
    1. Licenses - whatever the default license I feel that requiring attribution is essential. I would certainly push for that if I were on the Council. RDA is young and regardless of how well we feel it is going at the moment its future is far from assured and we want it to get full credit for any output used by others.
    Also, in reading the very useful comments from Puneet Kishor, the following
    > CC0 indicates a philosophical position that the conversation about copyright does not belong in academia and scholarship, that attribution can and has always been given as a scholarly citation norm without imposing any legal burden or uncertainty arising therein.
    made me ask myself the question -- is RDA an academic/scholarly organization? 'Scholarly' is a broad term but taken in the narrow sense I don't think that RDA can be characterized as academic any more than IETF or W3C or IEEE, etc. (nor would I claim that that is essential to Puneet Kishor's arguments). I really think we need more feedback on this, especially from more commercial organizations or institutions like like Max Planck. We don't just need low barriers to use, we need low barriers to participation in the first place.
    2. Maintenance - I don't think we know enough yet to nail this down with any precision. Ideally, the recommendations should be able to stand on their own for some reasonable period of time without requiring some process to re-examine them every month. Reagan mentioned a third type of group (WG, IG, Maintenance Group) and I think that is going in the right direction but I would make it a special kind of WG -- a revision WG for an existing RoD. Easier to create than WGs in that you don't have to start over with a completely new Case Statement, etc. And I wouldn't set it up ahead of time but let it arise as needed. If a RoD is in use, it will not be difficult to know when it needs to be revised. And the impetus should come from those who need the revision.
    Larry

submit a comment