From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:12:15 -0500

Project Muse.


> From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:03:10 +0100
>
> I think Lisa raises an important point here. In principle it would be
> an excellent thing if publishers and librarians, both dedicated to
> facilitating research, could be involved in the governance of all such
> projects assuming that they are willing to help with the costs. It is
> possible for some projects entirely governed by publishers to gain
> general respect -  such as CrossRef. I am trying to think of library
> projects of a similar type where publishers have been involved in the
> governance from the start. I am honoured to be a director of the
> Charleston Conference although I have not been a librarian since 1971
> and have been a publisher for most of my life and some of my
> colleagues on this committee are also publishers but I cannot think of
> others. Clearly a conference is not like RA 21 but Charleston because
> of its nature does lead on to innovation and indeed it is part of its
> overall philosophy
>
> Anthony
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Hinchliffe, Lisa W" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:05:40 +0000
>
> I'm not at all of the "no compromise" perspective that many librarians
> take. I'm firmly on record (even on video!) of the need to serve all
> of the principles in the library code of ethics - including both the
> obligation to confidentiality and the obligation to quality service.
> What that means in practice is of course always a continuous process
> of reflection, careful decision-making, etc.
>
> My concern with RA21 is, notwithstanding Nettie's very helpful posting
> earlier today including her hope that librarians engage, is that the
> steering committee includes no librarians
> (https://ra21.org/index.php/about/). I want to see librarians as part
> of the team that develops the strategy for this project and not just
> on implementation teams.
>
> Lisa
>
> P.S. Not my first time being disappointed in an STM initiative and how
> they conceptualize the role of libraries:
> https://www.digital-science.com/blog/perspectives/substantial-enduring-roles-libraries-article-sharing-part-2/
>
> --
> Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
> Professor/ Coordinator for Information Literacy Services and
> Instruction University Library, University of Illinois, 1408 West
> Gregory Drive, Urbana, Illinois 61801 [log in to unmask],
> 217-333-1323 (v), 217-244-4358 (f)
>
> ________________________________________
>
> From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 11:16:53 -0400
>
> I am not sure how I feel about these issues or how to think about
> them. Culturally and personally I am very much in Lisa's camp, but the
> pragmatist in me is not so sure.
>
> First, though, let me be clear that I am not trying to defend anything
> the STM Association or anyone else is doing or not doing with regard
> to SciHub. That's a commercial issue, but Lisa is getting at something
> more important.
>
> What perplexes me is how to influence discussion without entering the
> discussion. If one's opening and foundational position is "no
> compromise to privacy," strong forces, political as well as
> commercial, will simply not engage you in conversation. Is the more
> prudent role, if less satisfying philosophically, to soften the tone
> and role up one's sleeves?
>
> I have written about this elsewhere:
>
> https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2016/06/23/libraries-may-have-gotten-the-privacy-thing-all-wrong/
>
> I am truly perplexed by this entire issue and how to move it forward.
>
> Joe Esposito