This is a read only archive of pad.okfn.org. See the shutdown announcement for details.

manifesto_ideas
We've been thinking about whether it might be nice to have a manifesto or pledge that folks interested in open knowledge could sign up to, to indicate their commitment.  This could be a short text setting out our vision and why it matters.  

A manifesto could give new folks a clear way of knowing what we are all about, and also a nice way to get involved, as a simple step on a ladder of engagement (a bit more than signing up for a newsletter or following on twitter or facebook)

Other people answer these questions!

Which types of text do we need?


Why should we have a manifesto?
Tim Davies: great  potential in the development of a Manifesto as a project to explore the  shared vision and diversity across the broad Open Knowledge Community. 
Aaron Wolf: A call to action, an inspiration, and a mission by which to guide decisions
John Baxter: improving collective capacity to effect OK through developing a more refined conceptualisation not just of Open Knowledge as a conceptual topic, but of the movement (a result of dialogue, collaboration)

Do you want to have a manifesto? 
Yes - Stef - Question whether it should be Guidelines or a Manifesto
Yes - Heath Razbek
Yes - Daniela Mattern
Yes - Lane Rasberry
Yes - Pieter-Jan Pauwels: Prefer manifesto as it is more inclusive than mere guidelines.
Yes - Aaron Wolf
Yes - Tim Davies: I  certainly  think  trying to develop a manifesto would be a valuable  process. It  would be  interesting to consider whether this should be  approached in  the  development as:

    
- A manifesto for Open Knowledge (the core organisation)
- A manifesto for Open Knowledge affiliated groups 
-   A manifesto for a broader open knowledge movement, such that many   different organisations could help create and subscribe to it

I think the second two options are likely the stronger options. I agree, principled view that isn't tied to an organization makes sense, but it should be something OK as an org can feel they/we are the leaders in support
Depends: why? - John Baxter

What should it look like? 
Lane Rasberry: Make it a resource for journalists and writers to understand what OK is and does. Make it a resource which teaches people how to talk about open content.
Tim Davies: 
It  should be broader  than the Open Definition. The Open Definition  already provides a core  concept which groups can draw upon - but many  of the issues of power,  empowerment and social justice around openness  rely on going beyond a  formal definition, to argue for open processes  and action to address  inequalities outside the features of an item of  content itself, in order  to secure the kind of vision of a world where  open empowers. 
It  should also represent the breadth of fields in  which open knowledge  can be applied - from culture and hardware, to  governance and  development. 
One approach might be to invite different thematic groups to start with a process of developing their own manifestos combining:
And then look at synthesising those into an overall (short, 2 page max)   manifesto that represents the richness of open knowledge. 
Stef: i really like the cc concept, where you have icons, simple one-liners, a description for laypeople, and a full "legal" text.
Aaron: I disagree about legal text and one-liners. I think a "manifesto" is a document like (to use U.S. centric examples I know) the Declaration of Independence and not a Constitution.

Which issues should it include?
Lane Rasberry: Please make the manifesto a document with definitions. Define "open knowledge", coin and claim the term "open movement" (which is bigger than OK but includes all OK projects), please list all kinds of open projects with a short definition so that everyone will know that they definitely exist, and then please confirm the meaning of "open".
Right now, the general term used on Wikipedia for every aspect of the "open movement" is open content
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Open_content
If that term is not changed, then it might stick and we all use it forever. Let's plan what term we want to use as an umbrella term for open access, open educational resources, open government, open source, open everything. Is the general term for this "open knowledge", or will that only be a brand name? Is there such a word as "openness"? Can the word "open" be used as an adjective before any noun, or is the adjective-noun pair something specially done for every concept to make a technical term?
Also - please reiterate the BBB statements on open access which define open as free to read AND free to remix. A lot of publishers are corrupting the term "open" and "open access" to mean "free to read but not free to remix". While I appreciate them making content more accessible, I would like OK to take a strong stance that open means open to remix and if it cannot be remixed then it is not open.
The simplest way to clarify the issues is that openness doesn't say "no" as in the two CC licenses that say "no derivatives" or "no commercial use" (or non-) those are non-open. Openness means avoiding zero-sum games. We're working to provide resources to everyone that we all share and where we don't stifle things before we even know what they could be. It also means encouraging a culture of responsibility where we know that putting things out into the world has an impact on others and we are careful to do so in ways that are positive and enabling. That we respect privacy and don't push openness as an unquestioned dogma.

Stef: clear red lines what is open data/knowledge and what not, and how to handle both classes of cases and corner-cases. a clear statement that personal data is very separate thing from open data.

Which issues should it not include?  

Where should we draft - an etherpad, a google document, a github repository, somewhere else?
Tim Davies: I think process over platform is the best place to focus right now.
Stef: etherpad might be the most inclusive.
Google Docs for collaboration are SaaSS and should NOT be used, see https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html
GitHub is also proprietary and not ideal, although it is ok. 
github has had recent scandals about institutional harrassment - many projects are leaving it
I think this work needs a mix of etherpad and WIKI.

What should the process to be a manifesto look like?
Tim Davies: The important thing will not so much be the platform  for drafting, as the process of building a manifesto: how it is made  into an inclusive community process that could strengthen and rebuild  community trust, deepening shared understanding of where there are  common, complementary and divergent goals amongst us all. 

Possible elements of a process might include:


I know this isn't a quick-and-easy process (probably  needs c. 6 months start to finish at absolute minimum), and I'm mainly  putting it forward as a straw man proposal for discussion, but it does  provide the opportunity for community engagement that was missed in the  rebrand, and for thinking about how on substantive issues like identity  and vision OK can really empower the community in shaping the vision.

I think work should be done to look at existing resources (Wikimedia, CC, Free Culture, GNU, Comunes, etc) and lead be EXAMPLE: directly pull from and use existing sources.
If we don't make use of all the great work others have already done, we are not making the most of the ethos of Open Knowledge.
There's tons of great examples. I think bits of http://comunes.org/about/ would be good. I think reinventing the wheel, writing from scratch can be interesting, but we should start this
by using existing writings.