[PET] PET Digest, Vol 49, Issue 8

Shapiro, Stuart S. sshapiro at mitre.org
Fri Jun 15 15:13:33 BST 2012

I agree with Jean's argument regarding the potential utility of such a move. I also agree with Paul's response regarding the practical definitional difficulties. I think it is much preferable to distribute relevant CFPs irrespective of this issue and allow people to make up their own minds.


On Jun 14, 2012, at 11:55 AM, L Jean Camp wrote:

> I disagree with the proposal. This is particularly true since event
> organizing is one way for junior people to build reputation. And as
> such, they almost never have a voice in the publication policy.
> Changes in publication have come from organizing individuals in
> flagship events (e.g., IEEE S&P), chairs or leadership in events, or
> working within professional organizations. For example, the ACM
> library did not become open based on unrelenting demands but instead
> because of hours and hours of work of members of the organization.
> IEEE Xplore is being pushed by members, as well as by event
> participants and attendees, to be increasingly open. Refusing to
> forward CFPs would not be an effective approach, and would certainly
> not harm publishers.
>>> I think even if there are such
>>> people on this list, they would form a small minority. Overall, I think the
>>> pressure one would exert on publishers towards open access by implementing
>>> such a CFP forwarding policy would be minimal and its benefits would be
>>> outweighed by failing to get potentially relevant CFP information to PET
>>> list members.
>> In other words, you support the business of taking publicly funded
>> research and tying it up in commercial agreements?
> No Ben. In other words some human beings are marginally capable of
> recognizing their own uniquely  privileged role in the world. For
> example, a person who was born on third base, believes he hit a
> triple, is in a company that will never fire him, and is oblivious to
> those junior people who need tenure & funding can see such issues in
> black and white.
> Those who have had to deal with, work with those who are dealing with,
> or are capable of empathy for individuals who are engaged in the
> university system (with its demands for publication and funding) would
> understand that the question is not so black and white.
>>> Also, wouldn't it mean that even the CFP for PETS would be forbidden, under
>>> the current agreements?
>> AIUI, PETS is, in practice, open access, despite the publisher's
>> attempts to prevent it.
> Thus it is possible to move forward on a more evolutionary basis.
> Having shared my thoughts, I note that you run the list. I recognize
> that you have the right to do as  you please.
> regards,
> Jean
>>> - Nikita
>>> [full disclosure: I'm planning to send a non-OA CFP to the list shortly!]
>>> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 4:32 AM, Ben Laurie <ben at links.org> wrote:
>>>> I am contemplating not allowing CFPs etc for
>>>> conferences/books/whatever that are not open access.
>>>> Do people have opinions?
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PET mailing list
>>>> PET at lists.links.org
>>>> http://lists.links.org/mailman/listinfo/pet
>>> --
>>> Nikita Borisov - http://hatswitch.org/~nikita/
>>> Assistant Professor, Electrical and Computer Engineering
>>> Tel: (217) 903-4401, Office: 460 CSL
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PET mailing list
>>> PET at lists.links.org
>>> http://lists.links.org/mailman/listinfo/pet
>> ------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> PET mailing list
>> PET at lists.links.org
>> http://lists.links.org/mailman/listinfo/pet
>> End of PET Digest, Vol 49, Issue 8
>> **********************************
> -- 
> Prof. L. Jean Camp
> http://www.ljean.com
> Net Trust
> http://code.google.com/p/nettrust/
> Economics of Security
> http://www.infosecon.net/
> http://ethos.indiana.edu
> Congressional Fellow
> http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/govfel/congfel.asp
> _______________________________________________
> PET mailing list
> PET at lists.links.org
> http://lists.links.org/mailman/listinfo/pet

More information about the PET mailing list