Re: Central versus institutional self-archiving

From: David Goodman <>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 20:31:34 +0100

Dear Stevan,

Peter and others convinced me that I was wrong, and that
it was better strategy to avoid dispute over the specifics
of the plan(s) until the basic regulation was adopted.

All of the disagreements can wait. You will notice I am not
now discussing whether centralized or local archives are
better, or any other concerns, or any of the points where the
UK and US proposals differ. For one thing, the actual
workings of the new system(s) will provide better information
than anything we can say in advance.

We all recognize that your amendments are friendly, but at this point,
even friendly amendments may (incorrectly) be used by our opponents
as reason to delay the plan. It is clear to us that we do not differ
to that extent; it is not so clear to our opponents.


David Goodman

    [REPLY: It's clear exactly what my suggested amendments are to
    anyone who reads what I actually suggest, and why; there's no
    remedy for incomplete or inattentive or selective reading. Nor
    is it easier to amend a bill after it has already become Law. The
    Bethesda Statement was formulated without sufficient reflection
    or attention to informed feedback. Its legacy has been delay and
    indirection. The Sabo Bill too seems perma-clogged. Perhaps we can
    avoid that this time round by thinking it through and listening to
    those of us who may have some understanding of points that others of
    us may be missing. Mine's not such a profound or complicated point,
    but it needs to be grasped and weighed. The OA lobbyists have done a
    superb job capturing Congress's attention. It's now time to optimize
    the proposal, before it becomes Law, not after. -- Stevan Harnad]

Dr. David Goodman
Associate Professor
Palmer School of Library and Information Science
Long Island University

-----Original Message-----
From: Stevan Harnad []
Sent: Mon 8/30/2004 1:13 PM
To: David Goodman
Cc: American Scientist Open Access Forum
Subject: Re: Central versus institutional self-archiving

> David, it was you who wrote, about the US House/NIH recommended mandate:
> "Unlike Peter, I regard this as a typical example of what one does
> _not_ want from a government mandate."

Stevan Harnad
Received on Mon Aug 30 2004 - 20:31:34 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:47:34 GMT