[open-archaeology] AIA and open access

Fri Apr 27 12:53:47 UTC 2012

Hi Folks,

Honestly:
Who cares, what some lady at the AIA, who
doesn't quite get the 21st century, thinks or
says?

Open Access is a development that cannot
be blocked by single people or groups and
their actions. It is the unavoidable outcome
of more direct communication, facilitated by
the Internet, that by and by will eliminate
the need for middlemen and their services,
such as publishing houses. Can't really blame
them for trying to hold on to their business
models as long as they can -- that's just social
inertia.

If we as archaeologists think that change is
not coming fast enough, we can try and put
up some pressure to speed things along. If
that statement by "the AIA" really makes you
feel like it's worth replying to, then by all
means: go ahead.
-- but the lengthy discussion this has already
triggered on _this_ side should be reason
for second thoughts.

So I think a more productive approach might be
to publish a general statement on why we want
Open Access and that we want it now, and try and
get as many high profile supporters as possible
behind it. Then have that published in some
widely-read publication. Maybe this AIA episode
could be a side note in such a statement.

Cheers,

Ben

On 04/27/2012 02:46 PM, Sebastian Heath wrote:
> In general, that's right: I think there's an understanding that the
> "President's letter" was something of an "own goal" (to this time try
> my hand at a European sports term).
>
>   The only section that gets opaque is the one about whether or not the
> President speaks for the organization. In general, the AIA President
> can do so. This is good when, say, s/he is testifying before the US
> government on the particulars of our stance against the import of
> looted antiquities. "Yes, madam chairwoman, it is the firm position of
> the AIA that<fill in comment on particularly interesting wrinkle
> here>."
>
>   But it is unusual for the President to put the weight of the AIA on
> one side of a new and important issue without consulting members via
> votes of the Board or Council (bodies that meet a combined total of 4
> times a year).
>
>   All of which is to say that the statement is strong as it stands, but
> to the extent that it comments on the deliberative processes at the
> AIA, it may delve into murky waters that have never had complete
> clarity, even for those of us who have had to explore them in very
> practical fashion.
>
>   -S.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Leif Isaksen<leifuss at googlemail.com>  wrote:
>> Hi Andy
>>
>> this has sort of arisen from developments at the AIA that happened
>> around the time of the skype call. The word (Sebastian can confirm) is
>> that there is some internal awareness that the editorial and letter
>> may not have been a good move but as yet that hasn't translated into
>> any concrete actions to remedy them. As a result, we felt the best
>> approach was to be cordial but to make specific requests of the AIA
>> that encourage wider OA awareness (or at the very least, don't
>> actively militate against it).
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> L.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Andrew Bevan<a.bevan at ucl.ac.uk>  wrote:
>>> The draft at the bottom looks fine, but its quite a departure from the content of the earlier one. Perhaps this is a reflection of further skype discussion, but for what it is worth, I wonder whether it might not be useful to keep much more of the point-by-point focus and referencing of the original?
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27 Apr 2012, at 13:51, Leif Isaksen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all
>>>>
>>>> there's now a draft letter at the bottom of the ether pad for those
>>>> who want to add their names to it. The focus is directly on the AIA's
>>>> actions (past and future), rather than on the general issues, and from
>>>> the perspective of archaeologists based outside the US. Thoughts on
>>>> where to post/publish it are welcome.
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>>
>>>> L.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 8:30 AM, Stefano Costa<stefano.costa at okfn.org>  wrote:
>>>>> Il 23/04/2012 16:59, Sebastian Heath ha scritto:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The AIA is sometimes slow moving but "incredibly stuffy" doesn't quite
>>>>>> capture the range of people in either the membership or on the board.
>>>>>> And there's no reason to think the board actually had a hand in this.
>>>>>> There is a lot of anger about the statement over here.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sebastian and Chuck Jones have now published a response at AWBG:
>>>>> http://ancientworldbloggers.blogspot.com/2012/04/aia-and-open-access-response.html
>>>>>
>>>>> The outcome of the Skype call we had on Monday (available at the bottom of
>>>>> the etherpad http://archeo.okfnpad.org/responsetoaia ) was that the working
>>>>> group should take a public position supporting those AIA members who are not
>>>>> comfortable either with the position stated in Bartman's editorial, or with
>>>>> the AIA response to the consultation held in November 2011 (the two are,
>>>>> roughly speaking, equivalent).
>>>>>
>>>>> If deemed useful, we could turn our response into a public petition.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ciao and "buon 25 aprile",
>>>>> Stefano
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> open-archaeology mailing list
>>>>> open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org
>>>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-archaeology
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> open-archaeology mailing list
>>>> open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org
>>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-archaeology
>>>>
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-archaeology mailing list
> open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-archaeology

-- 
Benjamin Ducke
{*} Geospatial Consultant
{*} GIS Developer

   benducke at fastmail.fm