[open-science] OKF: What shall I say at the Open Science Summit in Berkeley

[Peter Murray-Rust]

I think this discussion is getting to the core of what the OKF is about. I'm
keen that we address "advocacy"

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:18 AM, Cameron Neylon <cameron.neylon at stfc.ac.uk>wrote:

>
> >
> > I certainly agree that advocacy is the core --- the fundamental task of
> > open science, in my opinion, is changing the hearts and minds of the
> > scientific community about the best ways of doing science.  If that can
> be
> > achieved, then all else will follow.
>
> ...and this is both advocacy and openess to outside perspectives and
> value...
>

There is undoubtedly an element of advocacy in the OKF and there should be.
I talked abou this with Rufus and Jonathan 2-3 weeks ago and their view was
that OKF stopped short of campaigning - such as the Open Rights Group. I'd
agree. I've recently been involved in protracted closed discussion by a
group who wanted to see the OKF as a campaigning lobbying force and I
resisted this.

By own feeling is that we should primarily practice advocacy through our
works. IOW we should create tools and materials that through their own force
liberate. Thus rather than lobbying politicians for Open data we create
viral approaches such as buttons and IsItOpen.

Rufus and I have recently won research funding from JISC (#jiscobib) where
the OKF was central and where (I think) its objectivity was a major asset. I
can see the time when there is a greater role for campaigning but at the
moment I'd suggest something like:
"advocacy through our works" - the works rather than the people are the
advocates. GalaxyZoo and Open Streetmap are examples of this.


P

-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20100707/c6bdfd89/attachment-0001.html>