Difference between revisions of "Transparency"

From Creative Commons
Jump to: navigation, search
(rm non-existant categories)
(remove spam)
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 186: Line 186:
== Patrick Peiffer, CC Luxembourg ==
Dear Jon,
I didn't reply to your email, just stumbled upon it on the wiki now , so
I allow myself to reply directly here.
Your initiative is great and I agree with Paul's suggestions.
My two cents:
this is not the first time
- an increased level of transparency was asked from CC HQ. (I remember a
2005 (?) cc-europe meeting)
- there was no reaction from the board's members.
Which kinda leaves me wanting,
best, patrick peiffer

Latest revision as of 00:07, 5 February 2014

How can Creative Commons do a better job at being more transparent and open to the community for ideas, feedback and participation?

I asked a few CC Affiliate public leads 5 questions in June 2007:

Jon Phillips, CC

Jon Phillips wrote:
> Heya, I want to start a discussion about transparency for Creative
> Commons. My tendency is to just email the entire CCi list about this,
> but I know that probably the wiser to ask you guys to list out 5 ways
> that CC can be more transparent to project jurisdictions and in general,
> first before making a larger discussion.
> To be honest, what I'd really like to do is just blog this on the main
> cc site and start this discussion in general for Creative Commons as an
> org, but that would probably be my last day at CC. I'm low on the power
> list ;)
> Anyway, if you guys could list out 5 ways to improve transparency for
> CC, quite generally, I'm going to start working up a plan and format for
> getting some changes through as an ongoing project of mine...
> Seriously, if you can fill out 5 ways, I will keep working on here:
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Transparency
> Please list!
> 1.
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> Jon

And here are the responses in chronological order:

Paul Keller, CC Netherlands

On Jun 24, 2007, at 3:06 AM, Jon Phillips wrote:

> Please list!

hey jon,
thanks for taking this further. here are my 5 (4) points...
cheers, paul

> 1.

cc/cci should inform affiliates earlier about upcoming projects  
(things like ccLearn/fundraising campaigns/etc)

> 2.

it would be good if there was a regular internal newsletter (does not  
need to be more than a regular mail (2 monthly?) on the cci mailing  
list) that gives an overview of events that have taken place (like  
launces, salons, intresting conferences), will take place and updates  
from working groups (like the CS working group). this would need some  
coordination (cci?) but would mainly based on input by all (cci/cc/ 
jurisdiction projects/sc)

> 3.

maybe have a half yearly road-map or something like that published by  
cc that gives a general idea where cc is heading in the next 6 months.

> 4.

have a seminar on how to work with tech companies at the next summit  
(cc-hq seems to be good at that, the jurisdiction projects dont)

> 5.

invite all of us to the 5 year cc bash in SF :)

Tyng-Ruey Chuang, CC Taiwan

Sorry for my late reply. Here is some thought on CC HQ
and the jurisdiction projects. A major issue to me is that
CC HQ seems not to have a clear idea of what to do with
the jurisdiction projects once the licenses are launched
(and, once launched, what to do in addition to license
maintenance). This showed up, for example, in last minute
fund-raising to support project leads to the Summit this year.

I want to be clear that this is not a criticism about CCi, whom
I think is overloaded with license porting and upgrading work.
As for iCommons, as is often said, it is a "platform" and for
iSummit organization. Relationship with jurisdiction projects
seems not be in her mission. So unless CC HQ has a clear idea
of its relationship with jurisdiction projects, I don't see how
the situation can be improved.

I think this is a difficult question. The jurisdiction projects
are quite diverse and each has her own objectives on what to go
after the licenses are ported. In Taiwan's case, as the project
has been sponsored by a government-funded research institute,
we cannot easily go into 'free culture' movement or 'open business'
experimentation. So we have concentrated on working with gov.
agencies on opening up their holdings. I will guess that in NGO-hosted
jurisdiction projects, they may want to be more progressive in their

I guess many jurisdiction project will tend to work on their
own pace and on areas of their emphases, and not to pay attention
to their relationship to CC HQ. I am not sure if transparency
in CC HQ will help much if the jurisdiction projects don't
expect much from CC HQ. (Of course, getting funded to go to
the Summit is another story.)

Nevertheless, here are my 2 cents:

1. CC HQ recognizes the problem (that she does not know
what to do with the jurisdiction projects in addition license
porting and maintenance) and formulate a clear position
on her relationship with post-launch jurisdiction projects.

2. CC HQ funds people already working in the jurisdiction
projects to study this problem and to come up with recommendations.


Alek Tarkowski, CC Poland

Hey Jon,

I had some server trouble, not sure whether you got this email already, 
here's my response to your questions:

Paul basically mentioned all the important things.

I agree that no. 1 + no. 3 are crucial - there should be a flow of
information in regard to where CC is going. I would include here some
form of minutes from board meetings, if possible (Wikimedia Foundation
is able to do it!).

Newsletter is also a good idea - looking at Tessi's experience with
soliciting responses to the short survey, a good newsletter would need
someone to regularly directly nudge people about what they're doing -
general mails to the list don't really work.

To this I would add (but this is probably a goal that requires a much
longer time frame than the work on improving communication), clarifying
at some point the relationship between cc hq and country projects - in
the past there was all this talk of webpage policies, schwag policies,
etc. - but nothing really came out of it. So either it would be good to
declare that no such binding agreements will be signed with jurisdiction
projects - or that, on the contrary, the relationship will be formalized
- but then this relationship should be better defined, and it cannot
just be a structure of obligations placed on the jurisdiction projects.
This relationship is unclear and it makes a lot of other things unclear
as well, I think. For instance, if the jurisdiction projects are defined
as important partners for CC HQ, then shouldn't they have a
representative on CC board? (I know little about how boards are created
/ structured, so forgive me if this is a dumb idea). And it all boils
down to understanding what and how much we can all expect from each other.

Regarding point 4. - in case of big companies like Google, maybe once
their headquarters are  convinced of CC licensing, they could somehow
delegate their particular offices (there is for instance one in Poland)
to support the spread of CC in other jurisdictions?

As a side note, what happened to the idea of having a separate CC US
jurisdiction project, as it was mentioned in Rio?

thanks for taking this initiative,