[open-science] Possibly interesting for this list: see item 3 in particular
william.gunn at gmail.com
Tue Oct 21 22:26:07 UTC 2014
Mike, is your suggestion that we do nothing, then? We know what we're doing
is a good thing. Biting our nose to spite the face of Elsevier is the worst
kind of activism.
William Gunn | 6506141749 | @mrgunn
On Oct 21, 2014 3:23 PM, "Mike Taylor" <mike at indexdata.com> wrote:
> This is why small organisations are more appealing than large ones, though.
> Even granted that all the Mendeley people at Elsevier have the best of
> intentions -- which I truly do not doubt, especially in your case -- we all
> know (and you surely do as well) that the moment what you're doing in the
> area of openness becomes an irritant to the giant, it will be swatted like
> a fly. No amount of rowing can steer a supertanker. Sorry.
> -- Mike.
> On 21 October 2014 23:05, William Gunn <william.gunn at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Puneet, it's a large organization. There are some people who get it and
>> really want to do the right things and there are some people who are less
>> progressive. The important point is that in a large organization like this,
>> not everyone is perfectly in agreement about how we should engage, yet
>> active teams have to have a large amount of autonomy and self-direction if
>> they want to be efficient. The combination of these two factors means that
>> you will occasionally see certain things come out that seem more
>> progressive and occasionally things will happen that seem like a step back.
>> The people involved in this effort are of the first type. Perhaps the
>> best response is to celebrate the wins and regret the failures, rather than
>> letting the worst things tarnish the good.
>> Peter, at this stage, we're just soliciting feedback on ideas, but please
>> know your concerns are shared by the team.
>> William Gunn | 6506141749 | @mrgunn
>> On Oct 21, 2014 2:49 PM, "Mr. Puneet Kishor" <punk.kish at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Yeah, to kinda echo PMR, I don't really get Elsevier. They continue to
>>> do dick-y things and, as a result, continue to be everyone's favorite
>>> whipping boy, but they also continue to participate in the open community.
>>> I mean, not that anyone should be excluded, but what is their deal? For
>>> example, in the TDM area, they have concurrently created hurdles and tried
>>> to solve them ham-handedly. If someone has insights into Elsevier's motives
>>> and strategy, please explain.
>>> Puneet Kishor
>>> On Oct 22, 2014, at 3:14 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> Is all the data in this challenge Open by the Open Definition?
>>> Is all the software OSI-compliant?
>>> Are all the entries fully Open?
>>> Are all the results fully Open?
>>> Is the process of judging Open?
>>> If not, I would doubt this is appropriate for an Open list. There sees
>>> to be no benefit for the Open community and no promotion of the Open ideal.
>>> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 8:11 PM, William Gunn <william.gunn at gmail.com>
>>>> Elsevier are doing a Grand Challenges in Research Data competition.
>>>> Here's how they describe it:
>>>> "The goal is to pick one or more open problems and, then, invite
>>>> research and industry teams out of there to compete and provide solutions
>>>> that improve a given baseline. Those kind of competitions are common in the
>>>> industry (e.g. Netflix <http://www.netflixprize.com/>) and are not new
>>>> to Elsevier <http://www.elseviergrandchallenge.com/> either."
>>>> Vote for the problem you'd like to see focus on here:
>>>> William Gunn
>>>> +1 (650) 614-1749
>>>> open-science mailing list
>>>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>>> Peter Murray-Rust
>>> Reader in Molecular Informatics
>>> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
>>> University of Cambridge
>>> CB2 1EW, UK
>>> open-science mailing list
>>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>> open-science mailing list
>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the open-science