[open-archaeology] AIA and open access

Fri Apr 27 21:21:07 UTC 2012

AIA has responded publicly
http://www.archaeological.org/news/8905

This is a good start,

-Chuck-

---- Original message ----
>Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:06:19 +0100
>From: open-archaeology-bounces at lists.okfn.org (on behalf of Leif Isaksen 
<leifuss at googlemail.com>)
>Subject: Re: [open-archaeology] AIA and open access  
>To: Sebastian Heath <sebastian.heath at gmail.com>
>Cc: open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org
>
>Hi Sebastian -
>
>In that case I think we should remove it. It's already pretty long and
>there's no benefit to be had in muddying waters. I'll make some edits
>
>Cheers
>
>L.
>
>On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Sebastian Heath
><sebastian.heath at gmail.com> 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