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.


Benedict, K.; Robinson, E.; Commons Governance minutes for October 12, 2012; Telecon Minutes. ESIP Commons , October 2012