On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Andy Powell <[email protected]>wrote:
> Stevan,**** > > Thanks for the response – that makes sense.**** > > ** ** > > I retain some concerns about our ability to manage expectations and > deliver a usable overall solution during the transition period (i.e. while > repositories are filled with a significant proportion of articles that are > not available for access) but I absolutely agree that this new driver for a > ‘fill then share’ approach is a significant and welcome opportunity.**** > > ** ** > > FWIW, I still think there is a continued need to work much harder on > usability as it applies to a distributed network of institutional > repositories – and that this is a much harder nut to crack than it was in > the days of a single disciplinary repository (as was largely the case with > what “physicists have been doing for 20 years”) but this does not detract > my shared optimism.**** > > ** ** > > Pre-Green Gold is Fool's Gold: Post-Green Gold is Fair Gold FTW!**** > > ** ** > > (PS. I did read the comments as well as the exec summary… but clearly not > hard enough! Your response to the THE piece is spot on in terms of clarity). > "Rockefeller University Press: CC-BY is not essenti...<http://poynder.blogspot.com/2013/03/rockefeller-university-press-cc-by-is.html?ext-ref=comm-sub-email> ": Dear Andy, By way of reply to your concerns about harvesting, indexing and search over distributed institutional repositories, please see the response, below, to Richard Poynder's interview of Mike Rossner of Rockefeller University Press on CC-BY is not essential for Open Access<http://poynder.blogspot.ca/2013/03/rockefeller-university-press-cc-by-is.html> I would add much the same reply about cross-repository harvesting, indexing and search: Provide the content, by mandating it, and the nuclear-powered tools waiting to be developed (but with no motivation to develop them now, over such sparse content) will be developed lickety-split. It is not lack of functionality that makes webwide Green OA so weak today: it is lack of content! *OVER-REACHING<http://poynder.blogspot.ca/2013/03/rockefeller-university-press-cc-by-is.html?showComment=1363266370373> * *1*. Mike Rossner is right in all but the RUP 6-month embargo on Green OA. RUP should of course allow immediate Green OA. But the OA embargo can be lived with for now: Once immediate-deposit mandates (regardless of whether the deposit is immediately OA or OA is embargoed) prevail worldwide, OA embargoes will die their inevitable natural deaths as a result of the increasingly palpable benefits of OA. All that's needed is the mandates and a little patience and confidence in the benefits of OA. Needlessly continuing instead to over-reach pre-emptively (e.g., for zero embargoes) simply serves to keep delaying the optimal and inevitable outcome (as it has done for 20 years). *2*. The same answer for Robert Kiley: The Welllcome Trust's preference for immediate Gold CC-BY is over-reaching, needlessly, and thereby delaying (embargoing!) the success and worldwide growth of Green OA (immediate-deposit) mandates. Counterproductive license restrictions will die their inevitable natural deaths as a result of universally mandated immediate-deposit Green OA. All that's needed is the mandates and a little patience and confidence of OA. Needlessly continuing instead to over-reach pre-emptively (e.g., for zero-restriction licenses) simply serves to keep delaying the optimal and inevitable outcome (as it has done for 20 years). Best wishes, Stevan Please read the comments, not just the Executive Summary, as they > explicitly answer your question. > > Meanwhile, here is the answer to your question, put in a different way, in > response to: *RCUK fails to end ‘green’ embargo > confusion*<http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/rcuk-fails-to-end-green-embargo-confusion/2002538.article> > " *THE* 14 March 2013... ** ****
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
