Governance (was Use of Sponsorship Money)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Governance (was Use of Sponsorship Money)

Sebastian Karcher
Hi all,
Rintze and I have put together a draft governance document
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NAqO2OfjaUZg2iEi4KvFkUiVcpcGCJVw9KnrBbBDYxk/edit?usp=sharing

This is set so that everyone can comment. Leave comments either in the doc or reply to this e-mail. If you'd like to help edit the document, be in touch individually and I'll get you edit access, we just didn't want too many people editing at once to avoid chaos.

The guiding principles in drafting this were
1. Don't have it sound like legalese
2. Don't impose any burdensome requirements on time or other resources.
3. Codify the consensus model roughly as we've been using it so far.

Looking forward to your comments,
I think generally it'd work best to put minor suggestions in the google doc and bring more general issues up here.
If you're happy with this as is, a brief indication of that would be useful, too, especially if you're commenting here with some regularity otherwise.

Thanks,
Sebastian and Rintze
 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises
http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_
source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Governance (was Use of Sponsorship Money)

fbennett
Looks fine to me overall. One very tiny nit: in the last two
bullet-points, you might adjust the phrasing of "If we suspect..." and
"Styles we deem...." -- no problem with the policies themselves, but
perhaps both can be stated without invoking state-of-mind language.
Something like:

* Styles for organizations that harm the scientific community, such as
predatory publishers. If a style is refused on these grounds, it will
be open to the submitter to convince the Board of the organization's
legitimacy; but the board's decision following discussion will be
final.

* Styles of insufficient quality. Maintainers will work with
contributors to improve inadequate styles to the extent of time
available, but given the important role of the repository styles in
the work of publishers and researchers, submissions must be of quality
sufficient to satisfy the maintainers before acceptance for inclusion.

(the above also removes "and/or maintainers" from the first of the
points. If the Board has the ultimate authority to decide, that is
enough to say)

FB



On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Sebastian Karcher
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi all,
> Rintze and I have put together a draft governance document
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NAqO2OfjaUZg2iEi4KvFkUiVcpcGCJVw9KnrBbBDYxk/edit?usp=sharing
>
> This is set so that everyone can comment. Leave comments either in the doc
> or reply to this e-mail. If you'd like to help edit the document, be in
> touch individually and I'll get you edit access, we just didn't want too
> many people editing at once to avoid chaos.
>
> The guiding principles in drafting this were
> 1. Don't have it sound like legalese
> 2. Don't impose any burdensome requirements on time or other resources.
> 3. Codify the consensus model roughly as we've been using it so far.
>
> Looking forward to your comments,
> I think generally it'd work best to put minor suggestions in the google doc
> and bring more general issues up here.
> If you're happy with this as is, a brief indication of that would be useful,
> too, especially if you're commenting here with some regularity otherwise.
>
> Thanks,
> Sebastian and Rintze
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
> Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
> Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises
> http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_
> source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF
> _______________________________________________
> xbiblio-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises
http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_
source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Governance (was Use of Sponsorship Money)

David Lawrence
Grammar or clarity:

Styles for organizations that unequivocally harm the scientific community, such as those for predatory publishers

David


On 18, Apr2015, at 21:38, Frank Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:

Looks fine to me overall. One very tiny nit: in the last two
bullet-points, you might adjust the phrasing of "If we suspect..." and
"Styles we deem...." -- no problem with the policies themselves, but
perhaps both can be stated without invoking state-of-mind language.
Something like:

* Styles for organizations that harm the scientific community, such as
predatory publishers. If a style is refused on these grounds, it will
be open to the submitter to convince the Board of the organization's
legitimacy; but the board's decision following discussion will be
final.

* Styles of insufficient quality. Maintainers will work with
contributors to improve inadequate styles to the extent of time
available, but given the important role of the repository styles in
the work of publishers and researchers, submissions must be of quality
sufficient to satisfy the maintainers before acceptance for inclusion.

(the above also removes "and/or maintainers" from the first of the
points. If the Board has the ultimate authority to decide, that is
enough to say)

FB



On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Sebastian Karcher
<[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,
Rintze and I have put together a draft governance document
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NAqO2OfjaUZg2iEi4KvFkUiVcpcGCJVw9KnrBbBDYxk/edit?usp=sharing

This is set so that everyone can comment. Leave comments either in the doc
or reply to this e-mail. If you'd like to help edit the document, be in
touch individually and I'll get you edit access, we just didn't want too
many people editing at once to avoid chaos.

The guiding principles in drafting this were
1. Don't have it sound like legalese
2. Don't impose any burdensome requirements on time or other resources.
3. Codify the consensus model roughly as we've been using it so far.

Looking forward to your comments,
I think generally it'd work best to put minor suggestions in the google doc
and bring more general issues up here.
If you're happy with this as is, a brief indication of that would be useful,
too, especially if you're commenting here with some regularity otherwise.

Thanks,
Sebastian and Rintze


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises
http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_
source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises
http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_
source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises
http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_
source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Governance (was Use of Sponsorship Money)

Martin Fenner-2
A few comments from my end:

* Cameron Neylon and Geoff Bilder have done a lot of work on „principles for open scholarly infrastructure“: http://cameronneylon.net/blog/principles-for-open-scholarly-infrastructures/. This probably goes into too much detail, but something that might be relevant is a „living will“, i.e. what happens if the project winds down, e.g. because a critical number of core contributors moves on to something else. For example that the project will be handed over to a named non-profit organization if that scenario happens. 

* when ORCID started, the organization set up 10 principles (https://orcid.org/about/what-is-orcid/our-principles). They have been very helpful, and something like this could also be considered for the CSL project, e.g. at the beginning of the document.

* "We will always make the specification and citation styles freely available“. I suggest to me more specific and mention specific licenses, e.g. CC-BY-SA for content, and either "an OSI-approved open source license“ or a specific license such as MIT for code. 

* two people feels like a small number for a board.

* „predatory publisher“ is a term I would avoid, as it sometimes difficult to define and possibly very political.

Best,

Martin
 
Am 19.04.2015 um 07:15 schrieb David Lawrence <[hidden email]>:

Grammar or clarity:

Styles for organizations that unequivocally harm the scientific community, such as those for predatory publishers

David


On 18, Apr2015, at 21:38, Frank Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:

Looks fine to me overall. One very tiny nit: in the last two
bullet-points, you might adjust the phrasing of "If we suspect..." and
"Styles we deem...." -- no problem with the policies themselves, but
perhaps both can be stated without invoking state-of-mind language.
Something like:

* Styles for organizations that harm the scientific community, such as
predatory publishers. If a style is refused on these grounds, it will
be open to the submitter to convince the Board of the organization's
legitimacy; but the board's decision following discussion will be
final.

* Styles of insufficient quality. Maintainers will work with
contributors to improve inadequate styles to the extent of time
available, but given the important role of the repository styles in
the work of publishers and researchers, submissions must be of quality
sufficient to satisfy the maintainers before acceptance for inclusion.

(the above also removes "and/or maintainers" from the first of the
points. If the Board has the ultimate authority to decide, that is
enough to say)

FB



On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Sebastian Karcher
<[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,
Rintze and I have put together a draft governance document
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NAqO2OfjaUZg2iEi4KvFkUiVcpcGCJVw9KnrBbBDYxk/edit?usp=sharing

This is set so that everyone can comment. Leave comments either in the doc
or reply to this e-mail. If you'd like to help edit the document, be in
touch individually and I'll get you edit access, we just didn't want too
many people editing at once to avoid chaos.

The guiding principles in drafting this were
1. Don't have it sound like legalese
2. Don't impose any burdensome requirements on time or other resources.
3. Codify the consensus model roughly as we've been using it so far.

Looking forward to your comments,
I think generally it'd work best to put minor suggestions in the google doc
and bring more general issues up here.
If you're happy with this as is, a brief indication of that would be useful,
too, especially if you're commenting here with some regularity otherwise.

Thanks,
Sebastian and Rintze


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises
http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_
source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises
http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_
source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises
http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_
source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises
http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_
source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Governance (was Use of Sponsorship Money)

Philipp Zumstein
I suggest to move the section about Inclusion of Styles out from the Governance/Mission document. Didn't you want to write such a text in CONTRIBUTING.md? I think these actions to not include some submissions in the repo should follow from the mission statement. E.g. because CSL wants to "improve the quality of scholarly literature" it can follow that styles for predatory publishers are not accepted.

In general I suggest to make the Governance/Mission document quite short and written in general style. All the details should be written somewhere else, where it is also easier to adjust things if needed.

2015-04-19 10:23 GMT+02:00 Martin Fenner <[hidden email]>:
A few comments from my end:

* Cameron Neylon and Geoff Bilder have done a lot of work on „principles for open scholarly infrastructure“: http://cameronneylon.net/blog/principles-for-open-scholarly-infrastructures/. This probably goes into too much detail, but something that might be relevant is a „living will“, i.e. what happens if the project winds down, e.g. because a critical number of core contributors moves on to something else. For example that the project will be handed over to a named non-profit organization if that scenario happens. 

* when ORCID started, the organization set up 10 principles (https://orcid.org/about/what-is-orcid/our-principles). They have been very helpful, and something like this could also be considered for the CSL project, e.g. at the beginning of the document.

* "We will always make the specification and citation styles freely available“. I suggest to me more specific and mention specific licenses, e.g. CC-BY-SA for content, and either "an OSI-approved open source license“ or a specific license such as MIT for code. 

* two people feels like a small number for a board.

* „predatory publisher“ is a term I would avoid, as it sometimes difficult to define and possibly very political.

Best,

Martin
 
Am 19.04.2015 um 07:15 schrieb David Lawrence <[hidden email]>:

Grammar or clarity:

Styles for organizations that unequivocally harm the scientific community, such as those for predatory publishers

David


On 18, Apr2015, at 21:38, Frank Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:

Looks fine to me overall. One very tiny nit: in the last two
bullet-points, you might adjust the phrasing of "If we suspect..." and
"Styles we deem...." -- no problem with the policies themselves, but
perhaps both can be stated without invoking state-of-mind language.
Something like:

* Styles for organizations that harm the scientific community, such as
predatory publishers. If a style is refused on these grounds, it will
be open to the submitter to convince the Board of the organization's
legitimacy; but the board's decision following discussion will be
final.

* Styles of insufficient quality. Maintainers will work with
contributors to improve inadequate styles to the extent of time
available, but given the important role of the repository styles in
the work of publishers and researchers, submissions must be of quality
sufficient to satisfy the maintainers before acceptance for inclusion.

(the above also removes "and/or maintainers" from the first of the
points. If the Board has the ultimate authority to decide, that is
enough to say)

FB



On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Sebastian Karcher
<[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,
Rintze and I have put together a draft governance document
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NAqO2OfjaUZg2iEi4KvFkUiVcpcGCJVw9KnrBbBDYxk/edit?usp=sharing

This is set so that everyone can comment. Leave comments either in the doc
or reply to this e-mail. If you'd like to help edit the document, be in
touch individually and I'll get you edit access, we just didn't want too
many people editing at once to avoid chaos.

The guiding principles in drafting this were
1. Don't have it sound like legalese
2. Don't impose any burdensome requirements on time or other resources.
3. Codify the consensus model roughly as we've been using it so far.

Looking forward to your comments,
I think generally it'd work best to put minor suggestions in the google doc
and bring more general issues up here.
If you're happy with this as is, a brief indication of that would be useful,
too, especially if you're commenting here with some regularity otherwise.

Thanks,
Sebastian and Rintze


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises
http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_
source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises
http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_
source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises
http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_
source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises
http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_
source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises
http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_
source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Governance (was Use of Sponsorship Money)

Bruce D'Arcus-3

I tend to agree. You generally want a conference document to be pretty high level.

On Apr 19, 2015 8:06 AM, "Philipp Zumstein" <[hidden email]> wrote:
I suggest to move the section about Inclusion of Styles out from the Governance/Mission document. Didn't you want to write such a text in CONTRIBUTING.md? I think these actions to not include some submissions in the repo should follow from the mission statement. E.g. because CSL wants to "improve the quality of scholarly literature" it can follow that styles for predatory publishers are not accepted.

In general I suggest to make the Governance/Mission document quite short and written in general style. All the details should be written somewhere else, where it is also easier to adjust things if needed.

2015-04-19 10:23 GMT+02:00 Martin Fenner <[hidden email]>:
A few comments from my end:

* Cameron Neylon and Geoff Bilder have done a lot of work on „principles for open scholarly infrastructure“: http://cameronneylon.net/blog/principles-for-open-scholarly-infrastructures/. This probably goes into too much detail, but something that might be relevant is a „living will“, i.e. what happens if the project winds down, e.g. because a critical number of core contributors moves on to something else. For example that the project will be handed over to a named non-profit organization if that scenario happens. 

* when ORCID started, the organization set up 10 principles (https://orcid.org/about/what-is-orcid/our-principles). They have been very helpful, and something like this could also be considered for the CSL project, e.g. at the beginning of the document.

* "We will always make the specification and citation styles freely available“. I suggest to me more specific and mention specific licenses, e.g. CC-BY-SA for content, and either "an OSI-approved open source license“ or a specific license such as MIT for code. 

* two people feels like a small number for a board.

* „predatory publisher“ is a term I would avoid, as it sometimes difficult to define and possibly very political.

Best,

Martin
 
Am 19.04.2015 um 07:15 schrieb David Lawrence <[hidden email]>:

Grammar or clarity:

Styles for organizations that unequivocally harm the scientific community, such as those for predatory publishers

David


On 18, Apr2015, at 21:38, Frank Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:

Looks fine to me overall. One very tiny nit: in the last two
bullet-points, you might adjust the phrasing of "If we suspect..." and
"Styles we deem...." -- no problem with the policies themselves, but
perhaps both can be stated without invoking state-of-mind language.
Something like:

* Styles for organizations that harm the scientific community, such as
predatory publishers. If a style is refused on these grounds, it will
be open to the submitter to convince the Board of the organization's
legitimacy; but the board's decision following discussion will be
final.

* Styles of insufficient quality. Maintainers will work with
contributors to improve inadequate styles to the extent of time
available, but given the important role of the repository styles in
the work of publishers and researchers, submissions must be of quality
sufficient to satisfy the maintainers before acceptance for inclusion.

(the above also removes "and/or maintainers" from the first of the
points. If the Board has the ultimate authority to decide, that is
enough to say)

FB



On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Sebastian Karcher
<[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all,
Rintze and I have put together a draft governance document
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NAqO2OfjaUZg2iEi4KvFkUiVcpcGCJVw9KnrBbBDYxk/edit?usp=sharing

This is set so that everyone can comment. Leave comments either in the doc
or reply to this e-mail. If you'd like to help edit the document, be in
touch individually and I'll get you edit access, we just didn't want too
many people editing at once to avoid chaos.

The guiding principles in drafting this were
1. Don't have it sound like legalese
2. Don't impose any burdensome requirements on time or other resources.
3. Codify the consensus model roughly as we've been using it so far.

Looking forward to your comments,
I think generally it'd work best to put minor suggestions in the google doc
and bring more general issues up here.
If you're happy with this as is, a brief indication of that would be useful,
too, especially if you're commenting here with some regularity otherwise.

Thanks,
Sebastian and Rintze


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises
http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_
source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises
http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_
source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises
http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_
source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises
http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_
source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises
http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_
source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises
http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_
source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Governance (was Use of Sponsorship Money)

rmzelle
Administrator
In reply to this post by Martin Fenner-2
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 4:23 AM, Martin Fenner <[hidden email]> wrote:
> * Cameron Neylon and Geoff Bilder have done a lot of work on „principles for
> open scholarly infrastructure“:

Thanks. ORCID is a wholly different beast, though. Much larger budget,
actually has staff, has more institutional involvement, etc. But I
asked Cameron if he has a few main pointers
(https://twitter.com/rintzezelle/status/589837683444297728 and
https://twitter.com/rintzezelle/status/589838592685539328), and we
should definitely take a look at his writings.

> * when ORCID started, the organization set up 10 principles
> (https://orcid.org/about/what-is-orcid/our-principles). They have been very
> helpful, and something like this could also be considered for the CSL
> project, e.g. at the beginning of the document.

But that's basically just a way to write down the project's mission,
right? Regardless of format, are there any important 'principles' our
mission is currently missing?

> * "We will always make the specification and citation styles freely
> available“. I suggest to me more specific and mention specific licenses,
> e.g. CC-BY-SA for content, and either "an OSI-approved open source license“
> or a specific license such as MIT for code.

Agreed. We should probably promise to use CC-BY-SA (or a less
restrictive license) for content, and MIT for CSL-developed code.

> * two people feels like a small number for a board.

Yeah, I wrote that since I didn't know if we would always be able to
find 4 people interested in sitting on the board. What if we don't?
Maybe not an issue if we keep the duties of the board light.

> * „predatory publisher“ is a term I would avoid, as it sometimes difficult
> to define and possibly very political.

I specifically decided not to mention Beall's list, since there is
some (valid) criticism on it, but you may be right that it's better to
avoid the term "predatory publishers" as well. I should also stress
that to date we actually have never refused a single styles based on
this criterion, and it might never come up. I'm not sure if it's
better to include a statement that we reserve the right to refuse
styles that wouldn't benefit the scientific community, or whether we
should just not discuss this (potential) issue at all.

Rintze

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises
http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_
source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Governance (was Use of Sponsorship Money)

Sebastian Karcher
Thanks for all the comments.
I've incorporated most of them in the google doc, so please take another look. I think the mission statement could still  be more expressive, so if someone has specific suggestions on that, that'd be great.
As suggested I've removed the criteria for inclusion and moved them to the wiki:
https://github.com/citation-style-language/styles/wiki/Criteria-for-Inclusion
with a link from contributing.md

Best,
Sebastian


On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Rintze Zelle <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 4:23 AM, Martin Fenner <[hidden email]> wrote:
> * Cameron Neylon and Geoff Bilder have done a lot of work on „principles for
> open scholarly infrastructure“:

Thanks. ORCID is a wholly different beast, though. Much larger budget,
actually has staff, has more institutional involvement, etc. But I
asked Cameron if he has a few main pointers
(https://twitter.com/rintzezelle/status/589837683444297728 and
https://twitter.com/rintzezelle/status/589838592685539328), and we
should definitely take a look at his writings.

> * when ORCID started, the organization set up 10 principles
> (https://orcid.org/about/what-is-orcid/our-principles). They have been very
> helpful, and something like this could also be considered for the CSL
> project, e.g. at the beginning of the document.

But that's basically just a way to write down the project's mission,
right? Regardless of format, are there any important 'principles' our
mission is currently missing?

> * "We will always make the specification and citation styles freely
> available“. I suggest to me more specific and mention specific licenses,
> e.g. CC-BY-SA for content, and either "an OSI-approved open source license“
> or a specific license such as MIT for code.

Agreed. We should probably promise to use CC-BY-SA (or a less
restrictive license) for content, and MIT for CSL-developed code.

> * two people feels like a small number for a board.

Yeah, I wrote that since I didn't know if we would always be able to
find 4 people interested in sitting on the board. What if we don't?
Maybe not an issue if we keep the duties of the board light.

> * „predatory publisher“ is a term I would avoid, as it sometimes difficult
> to define and possibly very political.

I specifically decided not to mention Beall's list, since there is
some (valid) criticism on it, but you may be right that it's better to
avoid the term "predatory publishers" as well. I should also stress
that to date we actually have never refused a single styles based on
this criterion, and it might never come up. I'm not sure if it's
better to include a statement that we reserve the right to refuse
styles that wouldn't benefit the scientific community, or whether we
should just not discuss this (potential) issue at all.

Rintze

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises
http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_
source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel



--
Sebastian Karcher, PhD
Department of Political Science
Northwestern University

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises
http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_
source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Governance (was Use of Sponsorship Money)

Sebastian Karcher
Hi,
I've not received any further comments about this -- I think the document we ended up with is quite nice:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NAqO2OfjaUZg2iEi4KvFkUiVcpcGCJVw9KnrBbBDYxk/edit?usp=sharing

I would suggest that we adopt it unless there are objections by next Sunday, May 10th (23:59 UTC for the sticklers). Some affirmative declarations of support would also be great.

To move the process forward, I'd also like to start with board nominations. In its current form, the governance doc establishes a 4-member board. Bruce, Frank, and Rintze have all indicated that they'd be happy/honored to serve on the board, as would I. Are there any other people you'd like to nominate (including, possibly, yourself)? I suggest the same one-week period until next Sunday unless anyone feels that's too short.

I'd assume that most people here know more or less who we are and, more importantly, our various roles in CSL, but if there are any questions, we'd be happy to answer those, too.

Wishing everyone a great start into the week,
Sebastian

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Sebastian Karcher <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks for all the comments.
I've incorporated most of them in the google doc, so please take another look. I think the mission statement could still  be more expressive, so if someone has specific suggestions on that, that'd be great.
As suggested I've removed the criteria for inclusion and moved them to the wiki:
https://github.com/citation-style-language/styles/wiki/Criteria-for-Inclusion
with a link from contributing.md

Best,
Sebastian


On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Rintze Zelle <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 4:23 AM, Martin Fenner <[hidden email]> wrote:
> * Cameron Neylon and Geoff Bilder have done a lot of work on „principles for
> open scholarly infrastructure“:

Thanks. ORCID is a wholly different beast, though. Much larger budget,
actually has staff, has more institutional involvement, etc. But I
asked Cameron if he has a few main pointers
(https://twitter.com/rintzezelle/status/589837683444297728 and
https://twitter.com/rintzezelle/status/589838592685539328), and we
should definitely take a look at his writings.

> * when ORCID started, the organization set up 10 principles
> (https://orcid.org/about/what-is-orcid/our-principles). They have been very
> helpful, and something like this could also be considered for the CSL
> project, e.g. at the beginning of the document.

But that's basically just a way to write down the project's mission,
right? Regardless of format, are there any important 'principles' our
mission is currently missing?

> * "We will always make the specification and citation styles freely
> available“. I suggest to me more specific and mention specific licenses,
> e.g. CC-BY-SA for content, and either "an OSI-approved open source license“
> or a specific license such as MIT for code.

Agreed. We should probably promise to use CC-BY-SA (or a less
restrictive license) for content, and MIT for CSL-developed code.

> * two people feels like a small number for a board.

Yeah, I wrote that since I didn't know if we would always be able to
find 4 people interested in sitting on the board. What if we don't?
Maybe not an issue if we keep the duties of the board light.

> * „predatory publisher“ is a term I would avoid, as it sometimes difficult
> to define and possibly very political.

I specifically decided not to mention Beall's list, since there is
some (valid) criticism on it, but you may be right that it's better to
avoid the term "predatory publishers" as well. I should also stress
that to date we actually have never refused a single styles based on
this criterion, and it might never come up. I'm not sure if it's
better to include a statement that we reserve the right to refuse
styles that wouldn't benefit the scientific community, or whether we
should just not discuss this (potential) issue at all.

Rintze

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live exercises
http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual- event?utm_
source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel



--
Sebastian Karcher, PhD
Department of Political Science
Northwestern University



--
Sebastian Karcher, PhD
Department of Political Science
Northwestern University

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Governance (was Use of Sponsorship Money)

rmzelle
Administrator
I couldn't help myself, and made some textual edits for (hopefully)
improved clarity, but the spirit remains the same.

I approve of this document :).

Rintze

On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 12:40 AM, Sebastian Karcher
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi,
> I've not received any further comments about this -- I think the document we
> ended up with is quite nice:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NAqO2OfjaUZg2iEi4KvFkUiVcpcGCJVw9KnrBbBDYxk/edit?usp=sharing
>
> I would suggest that we adopt it unless there are objections by next Sunday,
> May 10th (23:59 UTC for the sticklers). Some affirmative declarations of
> support would also be great.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Governance (was Use of Sponsorship Money)

Charles Parnot
fwiw, I approve too!

Charles

On May 5, 2015, at 6:09 AM, Rintze Zelle <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I couldn't help myself, and made some textual edits for (hopefully)
> improved clarity, but the spirit remains the same.
>
> I approve of this document :).
>
> Rintze
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 12:40 AM, Sebastian Karcher
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I've not received any further comments about this -- I think the document we
>> ended up with is quite nice:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NAqO2OfjaUZg2iEi4KvFkUiVcpcGCJVw9KnrBbBDYxk/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> I would suggest that we adopt it unless there are objections by next Sunday,
>> May 10th (23:59 UTC for the sticklers). Some affirmative declarations of
>> support would also be great.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
> _______________________________________________
> xbiblio-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel

--
Charles Parnot
[hidden email]
http://app.net/cparnot
twitter: @cparnot

Your Lab Notebook, Reinvented.
http://findingsapp.com


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Governance (was Use of Sponsorship Money)

Sylvester Keil
I approve, too!

Sylvester

On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 08:43 +0200, Charles Parnot wrote:

> fwiw, I approve too!
>
> Charles
>
> On May 5, 2015, at 6:09 AM, Rintze Zelle <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > I couldn't help myself, and made some textual edits for (hopefully)
> > improved clarity, but the spirit remains the same.
> >
> > I approve of this document :).
> >
> > Rintze
> >
> > On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 12:40 AM, Sebastian Karcher
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > I've not received any further comments about this -- I think the
> > > document we
> > > ended up with is quite nice:
> > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NAqO2OfjaUZg2iEi4KvFkUiVcpcGC
> > > JVw9KnrBbBDYxk/edit?usp=sharing
> > >
> > > I would suggest that we adopt it unless there are objections by
> > > next Sunday,
> > > May 10th (23:59 UTC for the sticklers). Some affirmative
> > > declarations of
> > > support would also be great.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------------
> > One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual
> > -Cloud
> > Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> > Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable
> > Insights
> > Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> > http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
> > _______________________________________________
> > xbiblio-devel mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
>
> --
> Charles Parnot
> [hidden email]
> http://app.net/cparnot
> twitter: @cparnot
>
> Your Lab Notebook, Reinvented.
> http://findingsapp.com
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual
> -Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable
> Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
> _______________________________________________
> xbiblio-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel

signature.asc (188 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Governance (was Use of Sponsorship Money)

Carles Pina
In reply to this post by Sebastian Karcher
I've read and I like it.

On 4 May 2015 at 05:40, Sebastian Karcher <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
> I've not received any further comments about this -- I think the document we
> ended up with is quite nice:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NAqO2OfjaUZg2iEi4KvFkUiVcpcGCJVw9KnrBbBDYxk/edit?usp=sharing
>
> I would suggest that we adopt it unless there are objections by next Sunday,
> May 10th (23:59 UTC for the sticklers). Some affirmative declarations of
> support would also be great.
>
> To move the process forward, I'd also like to start with board nominations.
> In its current form, the governance doc establishes a 4-member board. Bruce,
> Frank, and Rintze have all indicated that they'd be happy/honored to serve
> on the board, as would I. Are there any other people you'd like to nominate
> (including, possibly, yourself)? I suggest the same one-week period until
> next Sunday unless anyone feels that's too short.
>
> I'd assume that most people here know more or less who we are and, more
> importantly, our various roles in CSL, but if there are any questions, we'd
> be happy to answer those, too.
>
> Wishing everyone a great start into the week,
> Sebastian
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Sebastian Karcher
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for all the comments.
>> I've incorporated most of them in the google doc, so please take another
>> look. I think the mission statement could still  be more expressive, so if
>> someone has specific suggestions on that, that'd be great.
>> As suggested I've removed the criteria for inclusion and moved them to the
>> wiki:
>>
>> https://github.com/citation-style-language/styles/wiki/Criteria-for-Inclusion
>> with a link from contributing.md
>>
>> Best,
>> Sebastian
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Rintze Zelle <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 4:23 AM, Martin Fenner <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>> > * Cameron Neylon and Geoff Bilder have done a lot of work on
>>> > „principles for
>>> > open scholarly infrastructure“:
>>>
>>> Thanks. ORCID is a wholly different beast, though. Much larger budget,
>>> actually has staff, has more institutional involvement, etc. But I
>>> asked Cameron if he has a few main pointers
>>> (https://twitter.com/rintzezelle/status/589837683444297728 and
>>> https://twitter.com/rintzezelle/status/589838592685539328), and we
>>> should definitely take a look at his writings.
>>>
>>> > * when ORCID started, the organization set up 10 principles
>>> > (https://orcid.org/about/what-is-orcid/our-principles). They have been
>>> > very
>>> > helpful, and something like this could also be considered for the CSL
>>> > project, e.g. at the beginning of the document.
>>>
>>> But that's basically just a way to write down the project's mission,
>>> right? Regardless of format, are there any important 'principles' our
>>> mission is currently missing?
>>>
>>> > * "We will always make the specification and citation styles freely
>>> > available“. I suggest to me more specific and mention specific
>>> > licenses,
>>> > e.g. CC-BY-SA for content, and either "an OSI-approved open source
>>> > license“
>>> > or a specific license such as MIT for code.
>>>
>>> Agreed. We should probably promise to use CC-BY-SA (or a less
>>> restrictive license) for content, and MIT for CSL-developed code.
>>>
>>> > * two people feels like a small number for a board.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I wrote that since I didn't know if we would always be able to
>>> find 4 people interested in sitting on the board. What if we don't?
>>> Maybe not an issue if we keep the duties of the board light.
>>>
>>> > * „predatory publisher“ is a term I would avoid, as it sometimes
>>> > difficult
>>> > to define and possibly very political.
>>>
>>> I specifically decided not to mention Beall's list, since there is
>>> some (valid) criticism on it, but you may be right that it's better to
>>> avoid the term "predatory publishers" as well. I should also stress
>>> that to date we actually have never refused a single styles based on
>>> this criterion, and it might never come up. I'm not sure if it's
>>> better to include a statement that we reserve the right to refuse
>>> styles that wouldn't benefit the scientific community, or whether we
>>> should just not discuss this (potential) issue at all.
>>>
>>> Rintze
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
>>> Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
>>> Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live
>>> exercises
>>> http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual-
>>> event?utm_
>>> source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xbiblio-devel mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sebastian Karcher, PhD
>> Department of Political Science
>> Northwestern University
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sebastian Karcher, PhD
> Department of Political Science
> Northwestern University
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
> _______________________________________________
> xbiblio-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
>



--
Carles Pina | Software Engineer
http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/Carles-Pina/

Mendeley Limited | London, UK | www.mendeley.com
Registered in England and Wales | Company Number 6419015

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Governance (was Use of Sponsorship Money)

rmzelle
Administrator
In reply to this post by Sebastian Karcher
The document is now up at
https://github.com/citation-style-language/governance/blob/master/governance.md
and is mentioned at
http://citationstyles.org/developers/#Development_Process.

On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 12:40 AM, Sebastian Karcher
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
> I've not received any further comments about this -- I think the document we
> ended up with is quite nice:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NAqO2OfjaUZg2iEi4KvFkUiVcpcGCJVw9KnrBbBDYxk/edit?usp=sharing
>
> I would suggest that we adopt it unless there are objections by next Sunday,
> May 10th (23:59 UTC for the sticklers). Some affirmative declarations of
> support would also be great.
>
> To move the process forward, I'd also like to start with board nominations.
> In its current form, the governance doc establishes a 4-member board. Bruce,
> Frank, and Rintze have all indicated that they'd be happy/honored to serve
> on the board, as would I. Are there any other people you'd like to nominate
> (including, possibly, yourself)? I suggest the same one-week period until
> next Sunday unless anyone feels that's too short.
>
> I'd assume that most people here know more or less who we are and, more
> importantly, our various roles in CSL, but if there are any questions, we'd
> be happy to answer those, too.
>
> Wishing everyone a great start into the week,
> Sebastian
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Sebastian Karcher
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for all the comments.
>> I've incorporated most of them in the google doc, so please take another
>> look. I think the mission statement could still  be more expressive, so if
>> someone has specific suggestions on that, that'd be great.
>> As suggested I've removed the criteria for inclusion and moved them to the
>> wiki:
>>
>> https://github.com/citation-style-language/styles/wiki/Criteria-for-Inclusion
>> with a link from contributing.md
>>
>> Best,
>> Sebastian
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Rintze Zelle <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 4:23 AM, Martin Fenner <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>> > * Cameron Neylon and Geoff Bilder have done a lot of work on
>>> > „principles for
>>> > open scholarly infrastructure“:
>>>
>>> Thanks. ORCID is a wholly different beast, though. Much larger budget,
>>> actually has staff, has more institutional involvement, etc. But I
>>> asked Cameron if he has a few main pointers
>>> (https://twitter.com/rintzezelle/status/589837683444297728 and
>>> https://twitter.com/rintzezelle/status/589838592685539328), and we
>>> should definitely take a look at his writings.
>>>
>>> > * when ORCID started, the organization set up 10 principles
>>> > (https://orcid.org/about/what-is-orcid/our-principles). They have been
>>> > very
>>> > helpful, and something like this could also be considered for the CSL
>>> > project, e.g. at the beginning of the document.
>>>
>>> But that's basically just a way to write down the project's mission,
>>> right? Regardless of format, are there any important 'principles' our
>>> mission is currently missing?
>>>
>>> > * "We will always make the specification and citation styles freely
>>> > available“. I suggest to me more specific and mention specific
>>> > licenses,
>>> > e.g. CC-BY-SA for content, and either "an OSI-approved open source
>>> > license“
>>> > or a specific license such as MIT for code.
>>>
>>> Agreed. We should probably promise to use CC-BY-SA (or a less
>>> restrictive license) for content, and MIT for CSL-developed code.
>>>
>>> > * two people feels like a small number for a board.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I wrote that since I didn't know if we would always be able to
>>> find 4 people interested in sitting on the board. What if we don't?
>>> Maybe not an issue if we keep the duties of the board light.
>>>
>>> > * „predatory publisher“ is a term I would avoid, as it sometimes
>>> > difficult
>>> > to define and possibly very political.
>>>
>>> I specifically decided not to mention Beall's list, since there is
>>> some (valid) criticism on it, but you may be right that it's better to
>>> avoid the term "predatory publishers" as well. I should also stress
>>> that to date we actually have never refused a single styles based on
>>> this criterion, and it might never come up. I'm not sure if it's
>>> better to include a statement that we reserve the right to refuse
>>> styles that wouldn't benefit the scientific community, or whether we
>>> should just not discuss this (potential) issue at all.
>>>
>>> Rintze
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> BPM Camp - Free Virtual Workshop May 6th at 10am PDT/1PM EDT
>>> Develop your own process in accordance with the BPMN 2 standard
>>> Learn Process modeling best practices with Bonita BPM through live
>>> exercises
>>> http://www.bonitasoft.com/be-part-of-it/events/bpm-camp-virtual-
>>> event?utm_
>>> source=Sourceforge_BPM_Camp_5_6_15&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=VA_SF
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xbiblio-devel mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sebastian Karcher, PhD
>> Department of Political Science
>> Northwestern University
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sebastian Karcher, PhD
> Department of Political Science
> Northwestern University
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
> _______________________________________________
> xbiblio-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
_______________________________________________
xbiblio-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
Loading...