From: Adam <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 09:40:59 +0200 I hoped to find some clear explanation of what exactly is expected to take the place of IP-based authentication. It is not clear what this new thing is. Adam Sent from my iPad > On 28 Apr 2017, at 02:42, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > 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