[open-science] [SCHOLCOMM] Libre open access, copyright, patent law, and, other intellectual property matters

[Nick Barnes]

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 23:21, Puneet Kishor <punk.kish at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 22, 2012, at 5:21 PM, Nick Barnes wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 17:12, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> 2000 FTEs
>>
>> A striking thought, and (I think) a clear illustration of the folly of
>> IRs.  They don't scale.
>
>
> Not that I am a fan of IRs, but am curious as to how you reached the above conclusion.
>
>
> Fewer than 2 FTE to manage an institutional repo (~2000 / 1000+) doesn't sound very high to me. Of course, depends on how institutional that repo really is, and what all it accomplishes, but still...

I agree: a single institutional repository is probably going to take
at least 2 FTEs.  But essentially all of the technical work being done
by those two could be shared by many, many IRs.  So the cost of the
IRs is a linear function of the capacity.  Consider: how many FTEs run
the arXiv?  How many would it be if every university had their own
arXiv?
-- 
Nick Barnes, Climate Code Foundation, http://climatecode.org/