This is a read only archive of pad.okfn.org. See the
shutdown announcement
for details.
AdvisoryCouncil2015
2016 Advisory Council call 1 February 20:00 GMT in a google hangout
Agenda:
- introductions
- who will chair meeting
- who will take notes
- review of actions from last meeting
- update from Open Knowledge (Pavel)
- New Name! Open Knowledge International (OKI)
- Set-up a structure for the coming work (slide: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/17l3UATR2BBOWMcC0jTMGRYAQk-39nNET-Na2DQ-oDmI/edit#slide=id.gfc88d40b1_0_0)
- New project delivery model (Slide: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1j7nNnjCv3zJvr2Is2IO_WNuM072QZfJZC9UFw3H0H7s/edit#slide=id.p)
- Transforming our strategy into a Theory of Change
- Rufus role, going forward
- Viderum
- Role of the Advisory council
- Help with Theory of Change / general strategy
- Help with fundraising on a high level
- Help with hiring on a high level
- What do you need from me / us?
- Advisory council website status
- update on membership of the council?
- Any Other Business
Meeting notes:
Thanks to Hannes for volunteering to chair :)
On the call: Brian, Denis, glyn, Hannes, Nathan, Pavel, Peter, Rufus, Soren, Laura
Mayo escuses her non attendence.
Review of actions:
Rufus has taken action but hasn't exactly done the actions (updating AC website and sharing AC emails with the AC)
Action is WIP (work in progress) , will be complete by 29 Feb
Update from Pavel
3.1 - new name. Want to clarify that the original NGO that Pavel runs is distinct from overall network and community. Hence name is clarified to: "Open Knowledge International" or OKI
3.2 has set up a structure to deliver the work Pavel anticipates is coming in the future. Org chart. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/17l3UATR2BBOWMcC0jTMGRYAQk-39nNET-Na2DQ-oDmI/edit#slide=id.gfc88d40b1_0_0
Most important area of work/impact is portfolio, new approach https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1j7nNnjCv3zJvr2Is2IO_WNuM072QZfJZC9UFw3H0H7s/edit#slide=id.p
many more organisations in the open space now, especially single issue ones eg tax justice, extractives.
Discussed the 3 stage portfolio model.
Would this model mean org reinventing itself every 3 years as projects come and go? Pavel: not intention
Why do projects need to leave if successful? Sounds like incubator model. Pavel: other orgs are best suited to the task of global scale organising eg of School of Data. We know about open data but may not be able to organise global movement or training programme. Other orgs should and will take on the task.
Seems sad to lose large projects.. Discussion about project handover/exit as a sustainable plan. what is business model, how will activities be funded? Pavel: seek core unrestricted funding for non portfolio part of organisation, seek grants for the projects.
CKAN - has been a great project as well as a commercial business for OKI. Now "Viderum", which is a business pursuing commercial CKAN, wholly owned by OKI
3.4 turning strategy developed 2014-15 into a theory of change which is less 'lofty' and shows how the organisation has impact. Work in progress.
Pavel: want to see people using open data to improve their own life [ultimate goal of organisation]
opening data, using data,
Pavel is writing his theory of change, wants open debate, would like to share draft with AC for feedback.
AC looks forward to the draft!
3.5 Rufus will be spokesperson for openness, defend and extend space. No executive role in OKI now or going forward but helping fundraising. will be active in community
4.2 how can AC help with fundraising on a high level
suggest project ideas
introduce to funders or collaborators
similarly for hiring.
5 -- action is with Rufus
There are new chapters in Japan and Sweden, hopefully will send representatives to join the AC
AOB
maybe next time have preread on update and save call for discussion?
Advisory council call, 2015 Q2, 18th May 2015 8pm BST in a google hangout
Agenda:
- introductions
- decide who will chair/facilitate today's call, decide who will take notes
- review of actions from last time
- * Laura to arrange a similar call in around 3m [DONE]
- * Glyn to kickstart a discussion on this list about digital rights matters and whether/how Open Knowledge should be involved [DONE]
- * Rufus to consider whether others from the executive and/or board of directors should be on this list (enabling them to get more involved with AC and spreading the load from Rufus) and add them if so [DONE]
- * Rufus to endeavour to share more info/updates with the AC and will provide a commitment around this within a week [PARTIAL - more updates but not regular yet]
- discussion of recent strategy refinement from Rufus
- * Denis - re: strategy, it's good to know where we want to be, but how will we get there? (What's the means?)
- * Denis - to share a local group perspective on community empowernment
- interesting things from local groups
- AOB
- Rufus AC website listing (raised by Martin K)
the call is being recorded
Notes from the call
1. Introductions
Apologies - Martin, Carolina, Glyn, Daniel, Soren, Peter
Present - Denis, Hannes, Mayo, Pavel, Pieter, Rufus, Laura
Chair: Rufus
Introductions - welcome Pavel! Hearing from Pavel:
- Pavel's background, experience in growth in nonprofits, and as a volunteer at wikipedia since 2004,
- Keen to apply what learnt at wikimedia to a more mature & international org at Open Knowledge, and to learn from Open Knowledge.
- What's happening now: meeting and reading! strategy, commercial services, personnel, grant requests.
- official start 1 june
- been at Omidyar Network event in San Francisco last week. Attending Open Data Conf in Canada shortly
- on the Advisory Council: ... approach Pavel, let him know how things are going, help him learn. Also happy to hear what AC expect from Pavel
Denis - OK Ireland. Since 2012 working on open, with OKF since 2013.
Hannes - OK Switzerland, Zurich. opendata.ch. entrepreneur and activist.
Laura - immediate past CEO :) Renewable energy consulting and IOT/privacy things.
Mayo - Barcelona....
Pieter - Ghent. Studying for a PhD in linked open data publishing. cofounder OKF Belgium. Now succeeded by a new chair (success!)
Rufus
2. review of actions
3. discussion of recent strategy doc from Rufus
Denis: ... where's the money? 3 options: grants, revenue generation, donations?
- in Ireland, no donations for this sort of cause. Revenue - Ireland small. hard; there is a state funded org employing many data scientists which can take the tendres from government. Grants - few international orgs interested in Ireland; money goes to global south, or to central org (OKF london or ODI UK).
- last week US ODI nodes disassociated themselves because central org can compete in local space in tendering and in grants
- how can Central empower local groups to do what they need to do? Even to pay for hosting, space for events, etc. Difficult to attract money for regular costs.
- how can OK Ireland continue? Recently found out from Sander (OK Central) that OK central was bidding for EU money with an Irish org (competitor)
Rufus: question about resourcing both for local and international groups. What's the value of being a network? What impact do we want to have? (that's important because it's why resourcing is needed)
- EU consortiums.... OK international doesn't lead such bids (too hard for small orgs). Someone else therefore puts together consortia and if you are just a member not a lead you have limited control and influence. There is one 2020 project which funds several OK local groups in europe.
- founding and funding these groups is hard and we appreciate how hard it is. similar to Rufus in 2004-7.... no one writes back.
- useful to share insights across network. Laura started some knowledge sharing. German chapter has grown a great deal; support from OK International
- What do we think of strategy?
- What are resoruces? minds, spirits, time, money?
Pieter:
- as chapters we have our independence and that's great, can do anything. Good feeling. But when competing with each other, that's not good. but it's a tradeoff. Lean, mean, quick, agile, but may lead to clashes. If we have to notify each other of new bids etc in advance, this becomes a lot of work, slows things down.
- idea: a very small group, OK Europe, just to coord in 2020 calls and similar. maybe a europe scale advisory call. see who is doing what, can we be more efficient.
- stop competitors running away with all the 2020 money!
Rufus:
Hannes:
in Switzerland decided to keep core association v small and lean, and be enablers for others in the ecosystem, and that we ourselves are not a competitor.
how do we fund that core work? not trivial. but not seeing ourselves as a player in these bids is good. Pros and Cons to being an active competitor [for funds]
Rufus:
- Swiss also run a great conference and is very well connected as an enabler. Eg Hannes writing open data law
- individuals who contributed have also been members of other organisations, maybe already employed or doing work in open data ecosystem
hannes:
- agree, flexibility of people being employed in related organisations. Helps keep budget of core low.
Rufus:
Swiss core costs - paid for membership model for orgs and individuals. The professional association for open data people
Laura
- easy for contributed time if folks are employed in related work. Not possible in all countries, depending on state of economy, and in interest/support for in open locally. Countries without this are the ones we should support more
Rufus
- would like feedback on strategy. More distilled than before. Diagram.
- idea that local groups will make change, and OK INternational wil enable/support this
- support for local groups is difficult, people want to fund projects not network engagement and support
- recent months, any discretionary money went to local groups and chapters and network support
Rufus:
Pieter:
- will there be an expiry date on some projects?
- like a certain time when projects should be spun out?
Rufus:
- great question
- stewardship. better place to look after projects, run by others, with a stable home
- also retiring projects or spinning out, yes, eg pybossa/crowdcrafting, span out to the guy who worked on it. we have retired proejcts. want to be able to retire or move to stewardship
- hands off or hands on stewardship. legal, financial support, different levels
- if you've had the impact you wanted, wind down or retire. Going into production on software is a huge investment.
- CKAN $10-15m investment (not from OKF but others) - high risk, huge commitment.
Pieter:
- Should high risk projects such as CKAN still be part of open knowledge?
Rufus
- CKAN is moving to hands off stewardship
- less high risk now anyway
- CKAN Association effort. will go on but not responsibility of OK international
- chapters could join the CKAN association.
Pieter:
- if understood correctly, reason for keeping CKAN in OK international is for funding reasons ?
Rufus:
not quite
aspect of commercial revenue, grant funders like to see this
setting up a new entity is a real pain, save money by not doing this
- note CKAN the commercial revenue stream is not the same as CKAN the project [association]
-
Pieter:
- Belgium decided to spin out commercial things, the data tank, "we open data". Only community management now in OK Belgium.
- safer for the organisation (OK belgium) because people don't think they are a commercial entity pushing for clients
- better on commercial side too
- not carrying the risk of what happens if people don't need open data portals any more!
Rufus:
question of what happens to OK International commercial services?
also a question for local groups.
[notes not taken at Rufus's request]
CKAN association, can follow good non profit / FOSS governance
Denis
Pieter
- sad few American / latam people on call given time of call
Rufus
- maybe AC members could individually follow up and encourage attendance?
ACTION rufus: update AC website to include all AC members with appropriate bio
ACTION rufus: get list of AC emails so that the AC can know how to reach each other individually
The meeting closed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Advisory council call, 2015 Q1, Thursday 19th February 13:00 GMT(UK)
Attending:
* Advisory Council members [please add your name here if you are joining the call!]
- * Laura James
- * Hannes Gassert
- * Glyn Moody
- * Daniel Dietrich
- * Tim Hubbard
- * Andrew Stott
- * Panagiotis Bamidis
* Rufus
Apologies: John Naughton,
Meeting facilitator: Laura James
Agenda:
1. Introductions
1.5 What does the board or the management team want from the AC?
2. Roundtable discussion - what can the AC offer? Do we have specific things we should aim to do in 2015?
3. Discussion - how should the AC work? (calls, email, proactive, reactive, ??)
4. any next steps or actions needed
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
post-meeting summary notes
Key points from discussion:
* AC has been underused but has the potential to be very valuable. To be effective it is likely that the AC needs some input, either specific questions or requests, or updates which may inspire questions in response.
* Major topics in 2015 which would benefit from AC discussion:
- digital rights / 'internet rights';
- data sharing/walled gardens (eg for health data);
- international network - how to connect, support, oversee, scale;
- open washing, strong active defence of 'open' in the open knowledge context, quality of open activities;
- strategic positioning of Open Knowledge organisation and local groups, within evolving and growing open / open data landscape
* Rufus informed us that shortlisting for the new Exec Director has just happened and interviews will take place in March.
We agreed a few actions:
* Laura to arrange a similar call in around 3m
* Glyn to kickstart a discussion on this list about digital rights matters and whether/how Open Knowledge should be involved
* Rufus to consider whether others from the executive and/or board of directors should be on this list (enabling them to get more involved with AC and spreading the load from Rufus) and add them if so
* Rufus to endeavour to share more info/updates with the AC and will provide a commitment around this within a week
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key info
For reference - current Advisory Council description: The Advisory Council is an informal group who are consulted on various matters to do with Open Knowledge activities, strategy and operations, but hold no legal responsibility for the organisation. The Advisory Council exists to advise Open Knowledge team members as appropriate, and individual members may get involved with specific projects or challenges. The advice is available both on request and also by Advisory Council members proactively contacting Open Knowledge team with ideas, leads or opportunities. The Advisory Council is a group of advisors, rather than a group which aims to form consensus or decisions.
Who is currently on the AC? https://okfn.org/about/advisory-council/ [out of date]
Notes from February call
"What does the board or the management team want from the AC?"
- * Daniel: should be driven/informed to some extent by the executive board/management team, otherwise we produce hot air
- * Rufus: board meeting is every two months, formally responsible, legally, fiscally etc - AC could be in touch more frequent, board members are not active day-to-day
* ACs in general can find it difficult to come up with questions. Some (regular?) presentation of info can provoke questions.
Framing questions - clear soliciting of advice
Request for confirmation about current structure - board, management, AC ?
Rufus: The board meets every 2m (every alternate month is informal meeting - so 12 meetings a year). They are there to sign off strategy, may be involved in fundraising, legal/fiscal probity and governance, accountable to stakeholders. Set goals - chair of board acts as line manager of exec director. Focussed on board matters, less active in day to day than when OPen Knowledge was small.
- * Tim: AC as an expert body should advise on strategy. Board handles governance matters. Subset of papers could be sent to AC for input prior to board meetings - not the legal/confidential matters, but the specialist subject matter / direction of the organisation.
- * Glyn - here to advise if/when needed! Will answer questions when needed.
- * Tim: There should be a system by which advice is requested. It is advice - doesn't have to be followed.
- * Daniel: similar situation in Germany, advisory board present but not much advice sought. AC could also open doors to funders etc.
- * Options for what are the roles of the AC board:
- ** a quite board/name dropping
- ** advise on specific questions
- ** help with networking, connecting to potential partners and funders
- * Rufus: asking the AC for advice needs time, which management rarely had - but advice is alway worth it :)
- * Regular meetings vs. emailing a quick question
- * not asking for help may be a false economy - and it doesn't have to take much time.
- * AC needs to understand that advice may not be taken - action may not occur.
- * AC should feel able to ask about things, or suggest things, as well as responding to questions and requests
- * very useful for AC to propose new developments which otherwise might not be spotted
- * Andrew: don't ask too open questions, "what's going on in the world" does invite way too many messages
- * Daniel: making effective use of an AC requires some work from management team
- => AC is an underused currently. Clarifying what it can be used for and its purpose is therefore especially valuable. 3 areas
- => directed requests are helpful - on info, topics, funding, whatever.
- => strategy
- => funding (proposals and opportunities)
- => Regular reports from the management about general activities can help trigger AC input - can be existing material, board reports and/or minutes, project reports etc can be recycled, and can provoke responses/questions which is much easier than a wholly open call for feedback
- * good for AC to know what is happening and rationale for things, so that AC can help spread the word etc.
"Do we have specific things we should aim to do in 2015?"
- * Rufus: new executive director is coming on board, see timeline in the wiki. Shortlisting just happened, final interviews in March.
- * growing/major area with potential intersection with open knowledge -- Digital Rights, access to personal data etc. is a space we should discuss
- * Local groups is where growth is happening - how do we manage & govern that? Who approves new chapters, how do we share information in that huge network. How can the network grow in a sustainable way, stay in touch with chapters etc.
- * Glyn: open Knowledge should be making stronger statements around openness, things we care about, net neutrality, coyright etc. areas under threat.
- Hannes - disagree, should focus on core message, and not have opinion on everything everywhere
- => would be good to have deep discussion on this issue, makes a big difference to how org operates and what is done.
- * Andrew: more people doing open data, message getting blurrred, openwashing. Open Knowldge should be defending this - pointing out issues forcefully - being more critical when needed.
- * Panos - agree. big data also beign talked about. people miss meaning of open and linked data.
- OpenWashing
- Quality of data
- Meta-point: perhaps first subject for AC is thread on topics that are surfacing
- Andrew. Healthcare - may be a case for a walled garden. Conditions for this can be opaque - UK.
- Tim - eg issues at genomics england. summary data vs detail data. walled gardens inevitable . federated querying - no sharing of [raw] data.
- Laura - data sharing more broadly, terminology often mixed. Open meaning 'sharing between 2 orgs'
- Hannes - agree; Glyn - agree. contrast with open source (well defined) and open access (now confused). need to fight for definition of open knowledge context now.
- Hannes - global campaign idea. There are local topics etc, but a global push for an initiative in a single area can be valuable. AC could inform on that.
- Daniel - position of org within growing/changing international landscape. Not seen a strategic approach towards positioning within landscape - perhaps AC good point to discuss.
3. Discussion - how should the AC work? (calls, email, proactive, reactive, ??) & resulting actions
* thread on list on the big topics (digital rights; data sharing; etc) - Glyn to start thread on AC list about digital rights.
* More updates to AC about what is happening in org - action for Rufus? Rufus doesn't want to overcommit to frequency/content of updates. Note that organisation is very 'stacked'. Rufus to go away and think about what can be done, come back with a commitment (or just updates as possible - anything (frequency/quality) better than nothing, which is roughly current situation).
* cosnider adding other OK exec / board to the AC list to spread the load from Rufus. Action: Rufus to discuss with relevant people
* aciton Laura to send similar doodle in around 2-3 m for another call like this.
From email to AC list 27 Jan:
- Understanding and keeping in touch with a fast-evolving Open Knowledge space. What issues are coming up, what opportunities (and threats) are there to open knowledge as an area and to Open Knowledge the organization
- On specific policy issues it would be especially useful to get both proactive and reactive input regarding whether we should have a position and what it should be
- Developing effective governance and processes for running a growing (and now large) international networked organization. In particular, I think this is a year to really look at how we seek support for the overall scale of the Open Knowledge community through more input from Chapters and Local Groups and other formal constituents of the network. To put this more concretely think of it like this: Open Knowledge International has approx the same number of team members to support the overall Network as it has 2-3 years ago yet the Network is several times larger. This will only work if we start having members of the Network take on more responsibility and authority for running and developing the Network).
LJ clarification:
* a request for the AC to proactively point out upcoming issues, opportunities and threats, and potential policy questions [hopefully in this thread!]
* an existing question around governance and process for a growing international networked organisation - are there specific questions here, Rufus, or might this be a larger topic where we might have a discussion document from you, or a meeting to explore issues?
* a note that at present the AC interacts only with Rufus (I think) from the Open Knowledge International team. Should we connect with others, and if so how? If this group is to help the organisation overall, I imagine we might need to connect with more people. Who, and how might this work? Or should we raise visibility of the AC with the team and encourage funnelling via Rufus?
* help for the new ED - this sounds like a very specific opportunity, for a call or thread with the new ED, and possibly even fixing up quite a few calls such that all the AC can meet the new ED, share thoughts and ideas, and answer any questions. The AC's representation of all Open Knowledge Chapters as well as many other open and open-related domains and topics is likely to be extremely valuable to someone joining us at this scale and stage.