Dear Otto, Although I'm not supposed to have read the Springer bid (I presume), I prepared a few comments below (seconded by Harry R). BTW, we have never seen any competing bid, like the BCS one. So, no comparison is possible. And there is no Google bid (at this stage). Best regards, Guy Overall, the Springer (SSBM) proposal looks interesting. I will skip its strenghts, to focus on its weaknesses/concerns. 1. Such DL will likely bind IFIP to SSBM in the long run, even after the current agreement. The next bid from SSBM to remain IFIP's publisher will not be easy to circumvent if SSBM "owns" our DL. And SSBM can of course exploit that to propose a less competitive proposal with maybe higher cost for IFIP. 2. It is stated that this proposal is a one-year trial! Nobody knows how SSBM will change the rules later. 3. If this proposal is accepted, it would be wise to set up a procedure that makes sure IFIP can get back its publications (IFIP actually holds the copyrights, not SSBM) if SSBM ceases to be IFIP's publisher. 4. IFIP should keep the copyrights of anything published by SSBM (open access or not). 5. The IFIP-LNCS series is as important as the IFIP series, while the SSBM proposal leaves IFIP-LNCS completely out, for unknown reasons. I'd advise to include IFIP-LNCS in this agreement. Note that IFIP-LNCS proceedings are already more expensive than standard LNCS. If they become open access, their price may increase even more. To complensate, we may suppress printed copies, which are useless and on which IFIP gets almost no royalties anyway. 6. Electronic-only (E-only) publications will be the usual scenario for all conferences, not only for the small ones. Therefore, the proposal should extend E-only publications to all our conferences. Moreover, conference organizers should be allowed to prepare a local CD-ROM with the proceedings to be given to the participants (under IFIP copyrights). Note however that IFIP is presently bound to the agreement requesting at least 22 titles (with > 50 copies and > 200 pages) per year, but this should not be accepted in the future. 7. On page 8, we find "conference organizers will receive both the print and the electronic product". What does it mean? Will Springer prepare CD-ROMs for conference organizers? Any associated extra cost? 8. Budget-wise, this proposal costs a lot. But I'm not sure it's possible to find another less costly solution. IFIP should request funding from UNESCO to support its open access DL (at least partly). 9. What is an STM publishing facility? That's all I see for now. -- ________________________________________________________________________ Prof. Guy Leduc Phone : +32 4 366 26 98 Université de Liège Secr : +32 4 366 26 91 Réseaux Informatiques Fax : +32 4 366 29 89 Research Unit in Networking (RUN) Email: Guy.Leduc@ulg.ac.be EECS Department, Institut Montefiore, B 28, B-4000 LIEGE 1, BELGIUM http://www.run.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/People/GuyLeduc/ Interested in an open source toolbox for network traffic engineering? Try TOTEM: http://totem.run.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/ At 9:15 AM +0200 11/16/06, Otto Spaniol wrote:
Dear all,
please study the open access proposal made by Springer SSBM and comment on it.
Best regards Otto
---------------- Anfang Weiterleitung ---------------- Betreff: SSBM open access proposal Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. November 2006 18:14 Uhr Von: Joe Turner <turner@cs.clemson.edu> An: Arrigo Frisiani <arrigo.frisiani@unige.it> , Eduard Dundler <eduard.dundler@ifip.or.at> , Jerry Engel <g.engel@computer.org> , Jan Wibe <jan.wibe@plu.ntnu.no> , R. Meersman <meersman@vub.ac.be> , Roger Johnson <rgj@dcs.bbk.ac.uk> , Otto Spaniol <spaniol@informatik.rwth-aachen.de> , Ron Waxman <ron.waxman@computer.org>
To IFIP Publications Committee:
Attached is a proposal from SSBM for a method of addressing IFIP's wishes for an open access repository for electronic documents. I also have attached my initial analysis of this proposal.
The Publications Committee has been asked to review the proposal and to make a recommendation regarding the proposal to the IFIP Executive Board. Our recommendation should assess the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal. We should not try to say whether the proposal should be accepted or rejected until we have a clearer picture of the alternatives, although we could potentially say that it should be rejected if we find it unacceptable. We also could recommend further negotiation to improve parts of the proposal that we find objectionable.
Keep in mind that we have two possible alternatives at this time: the BCS proposal and providing in-house facilities to implement a version of the prototype that was done by Dipak. However, we do not have the level of analysis and detail that is provided in the SSBM proposal for the other two possibilities, although the BCS proposal is so straightforward that there may be no need for additional detail. A good way of proceeding at this point would be for us to focus on the strengths and weaknesses of the SSBM proposal, keeping in mind the other two proposals (as well as the possibility of additional options) but not trying to do much comparison. If we can reach a decision on the viability of the SSBM proposal and its points that should be improved if possible, then that would be a very useful result to present to the EB.
Please study the SSBM proposal and send your comments and questions to the PC members. Please also include any comments on my analysis. It is my hope that my analysis can be used as the first draft of our report, adding our summary analysis and recommendation(s) at the end, but if it cannot be easily modified to reflect our opinion then we can create another document.
The EB will meet in December, but the agenda is essentially full and it is unlikely that they will have enough time to consider the proposal then. Klaus has requested that we send our recommendation as soon as possible, hopefully within a few weeks, so he can decide what further action is needed. So please try to send your comments to the group by November 24, and we can have a discussion of the proposal and the comments by email.
Joe
----------------- Ende Weiterleitung -----------------
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:IFIP Open Access Pro#4D6EF6.pdf (PDF /CARO) (004D6EF6) Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Analysis 111506.doc (WDBN/«IC») (004D6F07) _______________________________________________ ifip-tc6 mailing list ifip-tc6@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/ifip-tc6
-- ________________________________________________________________________ Prof. Guy Leduc Phone : +32 4 366 26 98 Université de Liège Secr : +32 4 366 26 91 Réseaux Informatiques Fax : +32 4 366 29 89 Research Unit in Networking (RUN) Email: Guy.Leduc@ulg.ac.be EECS Department, Institut Montefiore, B 28, B-4000 LIEGE 1, BELGIUM http://www.run.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/People/GuyLeduc/ Interested in an open source toolbox for network traffic engineering? Try TOTEM: http://totem.run.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/