[OWW-SC] OpenWetWare and Nature Publishing Group

[natalie kuldell]

Sri and SC-
I'd like to second Drew's sentiment and congratulate you all on the 
soon-to-be-submitted NSF proposal. Jason, Sri, and Reshma in 
particular put in a heroic effort to shepherd the grant submission 
and I hope the outcome is favorable.

The NPG offer deserves some thoughtful consideration, beginning at 
the next SC meeting. I would like to see the details of the offer 
considered in the context of  a larger discussion describing OWW's 
future (both the vision and its execution). This larger topic has 
been raised repeatedly and there seems to be no consensus. I wonder 
if it would be worth each SC member individually investing some 
"pre-meeting" time reflecting on what he/she would like OWW to look 
like/run like 1 year and 5 years from now and come to the next SC 
meeting ready to articulate priorities.

If the agenda for the next SC meeting is too full to accommodate such 
a discussion then I would favor the 1/2 day splurge that Drew 
described.
Thanks,
Natalie



>Hello all,
>
>First, thank you to everyone that helped with drafting the grant and 
>writing letters of support.  The proposal is essentially in final 
>form and it took much effort by many of us.  Having the document 
>will have benefits beyond this grant, and will help with any new 
>venture or collaboration in the future.  The grant will be submitted 
>by the OSP (Office of Sponsered Projects) on Monday, and at that 
>point I will send out a copy of the grant to everyone. 
>
>Second, we were approached recently by Peter Collins and Greg 
>Urquhart of Nature Publishing Group about strengthening ties between 
>our two groups.  For the past few years NPG has been exploring how 
>best to engage  communities of scientists more directly, as well as 
>provide new communication tools for them (or so they say).  They are 
>interested in forming relationships at many levels depending on our 
>interest: from just general support and help with funding all the 
>way to complete managerial take over of the site. 
>
>Obviously such an offer, while flattering makes us ask questions 
>about the intentions of such a venture and the trustability of 
>relinquishing control to or even establishing close ties with an old 
>and venerated for-profit publishing group.  After giving it some 
>thought, a few of us thought we would put together a reasonable set 
>of offer  and then run it by the committee for 
>thoughts/reactions/suggestions/or better proposals that would seem 
>to work. So here goes:
>
>In general, we are asking for collaboration at first, and would 
>consider tighter relationships with NPG in the future depending on 
>the success of these initial projects. 
>
>1.  What we are asking for: NPG and OpenWetWare would form a 
>relationship which could include any or all of the following things:
>A.  Direct support for hardware and/or support for that hardware. 
>B.  Direct support of a software developers tasked by the steering committee.
>Both of these could either take a form of a direct monetary 
>donations, or contractual committments to provide these services 
>through NPG's existing infrastructures.
>C.  A major project chosen by the steering committee is planned and 
>execute independently by NPG in house.  For example, NPG could 
>become responsible for development of a personal OWW distribution. 
>This would involve simple installers for Unix, Mac, PC, installation 
>instructions, and simple ways to publish to OWW.  The specifications 
>for such software would be made by the Steering Committee, and NPG 
>would produce the software, and committ to continued development for 
>some time period. 
>D.  Advertising for OpenWetWare.  This is minimal and obvious to some extent.
>E.  Tools that make sense for NPG.  For example, a link on all of 
>their papers saying "discuss and comment on OpenWetWare".  They 
>would be taking advantage of our existing community and we would get 
>traffic and growth. (and perhaps tools to support this with other 
>publishing groups).
>
>2.  What they would recieve: We can also imagine a couple of things 
>that could be pallatable depending on the level of committment and 
>support.
>A. On every page will be a link to Sponsors.  Upon clicking that 
>link, there will be a page describing sponsoring groups and details 
>on how they are helping OpenWetWare.  For example, such a page would 
>already include MIT CSBi for server space, and Microsoft iCampus 
>project for seed funding through the end of the year.  That page 
>could also describe the current status of any relationship with NPG 
>along with a logo. 
>
>B. A small NPG image on the bottom of OWW pages (i.e, the CC logo).
>We need help with all aspects as we are a volunteer effort.  We can 
>begin by some modest levels of support for some basic hardware/et 
>cetera as well as people that will help support openwetware.  those 
>members would work with OWW on projects of mutual interest. (i.e., 
>the distribution, tighter integration with the literature, et 
>cetera).  If the relationship is fruitful for the both of us, we 
>will continue to make stronger committments to each other. 
>
>So we are asking for your thoughts and comments specifically on 
>these proposals, and also on what proposals you think could work 
>better.  Finally, I also should say that of course these discussions 
>are somewhat private, and that they not be disclosed directly on 
>OpenWetWare.  So please email me, or the steering committee list if 
>appropriate. 
>
>Thanks,
>Sri
>
>_______________________________________________
>OpenWetWare Steering Committee Mailing List
>sc at openwetware.org
>http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/oww-sc