Dear Joe and all,
There is no posturing or public campaign here. The straightforward statement quoted on LibLicense was from an update the UC Davis library published on its website for members of the UC Davis community, who naturally want to be kept apprised of the status of these discussions as they return for the new academic year. Like most news and information on a library’s website, the information is public because that is the most efficient way to share broad communications with one’s academic community. A similar update has been available on UC’s office of scholarly information website since late summer.
Best,
Ivy
Ivy Anderson
Associate Executive Director & Director of Collections
California Digital Library, University of California
From: JJE Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 11:26:27 -0400
The "harm," if that is the right word in making this into a political campaign is that it promotes posturing. Transparency is neither good nor bad. In this instance it is likely to introduce inflexibility.
I have no skin in this game. The UC researchers get what they need from other sources, many illegitimate, and Elsevier knows this. What the boycott does is make the UC libraries irrelevant. Strange position to take, but there you are.
Joe Esposito
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 9:16 PM LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: "McDonald, Joshua" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 12:44:15 -0400
That was my read - many in the academic library were following this saga with bated breath, and the UC situation was seen as a bellwether for their own negotiations. A lot of libraries expressed their public support, and it seems reasonable to keep them apprised of the state of affairs.
To turn the question on its head, does making it public *harm* the discussion? Is transparency a worthwhile goal in itself?
-Josh
--
Joshua D. McDonald | Collections Strategist | The George Washington University Libraries | 2130 H St. NW Washington, DC 20052 | 202-994-0084 | [log in to unmask] | https://calendly.com/joshmcdonald | he/him/his
On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 10:54 PM LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: "Hinchliffe, Lisa W" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2020 22:41:31 +0000
I wonder if there is some sense that those who made statements of support deserve to be kept apprised? See: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/09/09/what-do-statements-of-support-for-california-tell-us-about-the-big-deal/
--
Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
Professor/Coordinator for Information Literacy Services and Instruction, University LibraryAffiliate Faculty, School of Information Sciences
University of Illinois, 1408 West Gregory Drive, Urbana, Illinois 61801
[log in to unmask], 217-333-1323 (v), 217-244-4358 (f)https://lisahinchliffe.com - @lisalibrarian
From: JJE Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 10:31:54 -0400
Can anyone explain why this is being conducted in public? There is no news here: two entities are sitting down to have a discussion. How does the publicity facilitate the discussion?
Joe Esposito
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 11:17 PM LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 23:14:35 -0400
UPDATE AS OF OCTOBER 2020
Following a series of informal meetings with Elsevier this spring and
summer that suggest there may be new potential for progress, UC’s
publisher negotiations team has restarted formal negotiations with
Elsevier. UC remains committed to its goal of reaching an agreement
that provides for open access publishing of UC-authored articles and
restores UC’s access to Elsevier journal content, at a reasonable
cost.
https://www.library.ucdavis.edu/uc-elsevier/