[OWW-SC] Steering Committee Meeting Thursday @ Noon EST

Tue Jul 11 02:49:48 EDT 2006

Hi SC,
The retreat sounds like a good idea, but from polling folks, I think
the grant-writing may have burned people out a bit for it to be this
week.  We'll try and schedule the retreat for some time in late
July/early August instead.  Location TBD, suggestions welcome.

In the meantime, we will still be having the normally scheduled SC
meeting this Thursday at Noon EST.  We will be devoting ~30 min to
discussing the NPG offer, so please come with comments and thoughts.

Agenda here, please add/edit:
http://openwetware.org/wiki/OpenWetWare:Steering_committee/Meeting_-_July_2006#Agenda

Thanks,
Jason

On 7/9/06, John Cumbers <johncumbers at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> Yes I agree, the bright lights of NPG are tempting, but dazzling at the same
> time.   Any ideas where to go for a retreat?  I know a great place in Rhode
> Island, but it is a little far from Boston (90 miles down the I95).  We
> could host it at Brown, but it is not much of a retreat.  Ideas nearer to
> Boston?  Will the date be this Thursday the 13th? WE might need to provide
> teleconf. facilites.   I set up a page for the retreat,
> cheers,
> John
>
>
>
> On 7/7/06, natalie kuldell <nkuldell at mit.edu> wrote:
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenWetWare Steering Committee Mailing List
> > sc at openwetware.org
> > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/oww-sc
> >
>
>
>
> --
>  John Cumbers,  Graduate Student in Computational Biology
> Brown University, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Box G-W
> 80 Waterman Street, Providence, Rhode Island, 02912, USA
> USA: +1 401 523 8190,  UK to USA: 0207 617 7824
> _______________________________________________
> OpenWetWare Steering Committee Mailing List
> sc at openwetware.org
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/oww-sc
>
>
>