Commons Governance minutes for October 12, 2012
Commons Governance minutes for October 12, 2012 1pm EST
Attendees: Karl, Erin, Kevin, Bob, Reid
Karl shared Google docs document: Principles and Policies
Dimensions of Commons governance issues that needed to consider
· Mission & vision attributes
· Dimensions of licensing options related to the commons
· Principles and policies as outcome of discussions
· Roles of steering committee
Members take on writing role of outline- definition of the governance guiding principles and policies.
Karl- start to translating the discussion to language of policy for contributors- what might be structure of management for Commons?
· Key- question of licensing: having a cc style as a default and as a preferred license
Bob- agrees would say to go with the cc by license (attribution license)
Karl; need or desire for gov. members to have a public domain license option?
Kevin- yes- not sure from NASA what is the desired type
Bob- cc by license assumes that you are owner and you have copywrite
· once you are the holder than you can assign the cc license to it. working for a gov agency- depending on how create- dictate what your options are
· do the work at your office- at the agency- considered public domain
· if on your own time- own resources- wouldn't fall under that agency
Karl- we could have material that is public domain that agency- putting content and propagating that state into the commons- otherwise the copyright is owned by the person and they can certify it as such.
Bob- if possible # of license for options should limited it might be confusing - be careful to not have too many but public domain offer is good for gov and others who would decide
Karl- pub domain concern because it doesn't have the attribution so not as preferred
Bob- need for people to know what getting into
· maybe have a webex to explain copyright types - have an expert
· from visualization cluster- presenters and presentation only one license applicable for whole wasn't a way to assign license to different
Erin- presentations should have its own content type- working on that process
Bob- cc by-license badge cut and paste into document- recognizable can even put explanation and url so can read if need to.
Karl- may want to build that in- don't have in the wiki page or in the document outline-
· style guide for content- good element for style guide
· explicit embedding of the license into the document not just in the metadata- standard of practice
-Adding a section for the style guide-
· simplicity of the cc -by
· many journals (open access- use the cc by license) pretty much standard
· Karl- would that cause any time where work against us?
· Goal is max. share-ability and usability while maximizing amount can get in
· Karl- how about also the cc 0 - more international compliance or understanding of public domain
· Bob- other issues have occurred- legal arguments
Another area- core for documentation: definition of the roles and responsibilities for the different actors
· Model- who are the actors in the commons?
· How do we define the roles and responsibilities
· Created 4 different actors (plus one)
1. steering comm
2. content area editors
3. content contributors
4. content administrators
5. Users (contributing in the form of comments)
· Licensing- for comments- Users must be registered with the system in order to comment gives us an opportunity to have users agree that their comments will fall under a particular license
· We could look at cc-by license for commons proper to keep simple
· Do commenters own comments?
· Available under a cc- by license, commenters still own (we provide attribute) post same comments elsewhere
· Bob- giving opportunity to contribute that they understand that you can't be held liable- can delete and revise as needed
· Karl- brings back to the roles and responsibilities for the system orchestrator
· Contributors: developing content- need to certify that they own the cc and allowed to contribute need to follow regulations according to the guide
· Bob provides scenario: say contributor put up content in good faith- user has privileges to make comment that is nasty: accuse author- author disappears but accusation remains- could be detrimental to the reputation of the person who has posted it- like graffiti
· Erin- policy on the site for constructive comments only
· Karl- that is what the function of content area editors would regulate- deciding the content areas by specific constraints- designated editor or editors- they would be a set of eyes before publication
· set of standards across the commons as a whole-- style guide
· essentially community standards- editors flip the switch
· would lean more towards removal rather than editing
· troll-like comments- community norm- vigorous debate- we could have areas designed for vigorous conversation
· kind of a sand box area
· Understanding that there may be norms in different areas
· Bob- another way that can help facilitate growing content would be to have the capability to flag the content send an email
· Kevin- self-policing kind of like on youTube
· Karl- Erin- can we do that?
· E- not native- probably can find a module
· Karl- may be editorial or content level decisions that may get appealed controversy- court of last resort is the steering committee itself could bring appeals to the steering committee for final adjudication
· Bob- individuals serving for area editors-removing content- authors of that content - may lash out at the editors. Anonymity of content area editors? Not make explicit who is regulating
· Erin- anonymous review is good idea- may be making issues for ourselves light touch
· Karl- core goals- high degree of transparency- including on who is providing the community policing- we would deal with any trolls visibly and publicly
· Bob- what if he works for the funding agency and the editor feels in jeopardy
· Erin- I think we would need to just cross that bridge when we get there
· Karl- be prepared to work through scenarios as they arise work through our mechanisms in place- local decision making- but can intervene
Karl asks- Is it time to start writing sections of document- one more week?
Erin- start to write this week -issues will be flushed out
Email or in Google doc just put name out on section heading
Meeting next week (same time): Friday October 19, 2012 1pm EST.