One of the objectives of the Local Context, Global Commons project is to develop a framework for measuring openness, which can be applied to anything; from government systems to archival sectors or individual projects.

Of course, without defined guidelines, it’s easy for a term like ‘openness’ to become relative, particularly considering that the project spans several countries, all of which have differing perspectives. Naturally, the process of deciding what to include in the framework will need to take all of these perspectives into consideration, and the decision-making process will have to be shared between all participants. Although developing this framework within the context of the project is the main objective at the moment, it is possible that the project could grow to become a more global framework, which could be used in the evaluation of openness in projects, governments and communities around the world.

So what would this thing look like?
One possibility for the framework would be to establish a checklist, which can be adjusted, depending on the sector being evaluated. Then, working from the bottom up, various point of openness can be listed, from the most basic, to the most complex. The sector’s openness can then be determined, depending on how many of the criteria a sector is able to meet.

The most logical starting point would be to look at where information is stored in specific countries, by sector. Is it online, in a library or made available in print? If the information is in a library, then how easy or difficult is it to access? Is there a fee for access involved? In what language is the information available? If the information is online, is it easy to find? How accessible is the Internet in the country being evaluated? Is there a charge for accessing the information? If the information is in print, does it carry a charge? If accessing the information does cost, who does the revenue go to? These types of questions serve to establish the most basic premise of whether information can be accessed or not, and how easy that process is.

The second level of evaluation could be one that looks at how freely that information can be used. For example, is it copyrighted? What kind of copyright is being used? Are provisions made for the copying and re-use of the information, and if so, under what conditions? Can material be commercially used? Can it be broadcast or published? Are there restrictions to who is able to re-use that work, for example, the BBC’s Creative Archive only allows material to be re-used by residents of the United Kingdom, because they pay licence fees which fund the creation of content.

The third level would look more at who owns the copyright and the copyright policies they prescribe. If, for example, the public sector is being evaluated, do they make it policy to use open standards? Do they use any open licensing? If so, what kind of licences are they using?

If a community is being evaluated, the criteria can be adjusted. For example, what are the governance policies of the community? Are the governance structures available to community members? Is there a transparent decision-making process?

So how do you plan on putting this together?
Of course, this multiplicity of questions needs to be refined, and trimmed down – ideally the checklist would be as short as possible to facilitate ease of use. The process of refining the questions would be one aspect of the project in which input from the various partners would be extremely useful.

Another aspect of the project is the development of different checklists (all sharing the same basic standards) that can be applied to different sectors, like education, policy, archives, access to indigenous knowledge, open communities and open businesses. During this phase of development, input from people with expertise in each area would have to be solicited.

And the point is…?
Ultimately, the aim of the exercise is to create a framework that can be used by anyone who needs to evaluate openness. Donors would be able to use it in the grant-making process, activists could use it when evaluation governments or organisations, projects looking for funding could use it to show their credentials, and communities wishing to work on their internal structures could use it to guide their restructuring. It would, ultimately, become a standard, that can change and evolve as our understandings of openness grow and change.

tags: Johannesburg South Africa other local-context-global-commons open-access evaluation-frameworks

extracted from: