From: "Shillum, Chris (ELS-NYC)" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 18:30:48 +0000 Lisa, Your point is absolutely valid. The transition of RA21 into a joint STM/NISO initiative has just been finalised, following the completion of the NISO voting procedure on the matter. A very high priority on our agenda is now to revise the governance model to include stakeholders from all sectors. I believe that RA21 presents a great opportunity to improve access to scholarly information resources for researchers and students. However, it will only succeed with cooperation from all parties involved in providing those resources - librarians, publishers, platform vendors, and Identity and Access Management experts. We have had great participation from across those sectors in the meetings and workshops we've held to date, and we look forward to that continuing in the future. Regards Chris Shillum VP Platform and Data Integration, Elsevier Co-chair RA21 T: +1 212 462 1987 M: +1 646 250 8029 E: [log in to unmask] A: 230 Park Avenue, Suite 800, New York, NY 10169-0935, USA http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1108-3660 -----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