---------------- Anfang Weiterleitung ---------------- Betreff: Re: SSBM open access proposal Gesendet: Sonntag, 26. November 2006 16:54 Uhr Von: Joe Turner turner@cs.clemson.edu An: Robert On The Road meersman@vub.ac.be , Otto Spaniol spaniol@informatik.rwth-aachen.de , Arrigo Luigi 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 , Roger Johnson rgj@dcs.bbk.ac.uk Kopie: Ron Waxman r.waxman@computer.org , Klaus Brunnstein brunnstein@informatik.uni-hamburg.de , Basie von Solms basie@rau.ac.za
Dear Members of the IFIP PC,
When I sent my original message to you containing the SSBM proposal and requesting comments from you regarding the proposal, I intended that our discussion be an internal, confidential discussion of the proposal, on which we were requested to comment by the IFIP President. Unfortunately I did not remind you that documents such as the SSBM proposal (especially this one because it has not even been formally submitted by SSBM) are confidential and should not be distributed. I apologize for not including this reminder.
I know that those of you who are TC chairs feel that you primarily represent your TC and therefore need to receive input from your TC on all PC matters. It also is the case that having more perspectives will often provide better insight as to advantages and problems. However, it is essential that we have private, confidential, internal discussions on matters involving negotiations with individuals or individual organizations.
If you have sent a copy of the SSBM proposal to anyone, please request all who have received the proposal to keep it confidential and not to provide it to anyone else.
Joe
Robert On The Road wrote:
Dear Joe, and all,
I am afraid you and Roger are 100% right and this is quite serious for us as responsible members of the PC. We are its members à titre personnel, not e.g. as representatives of any privileged TC. It is evident from the emails that Otto has circulated/is circulating the proposal in TC6 in spite of its equally evident confidential character and that at least one person in TC6 or elsewhere (Harry Rudin) is involved in separate, non-IFIP endorsed, negotiations with outsiders (Google). So the breach of confidence must be assumed a fact and may expose us, i.e. IFIP but also maybe personally as commission members, to repercussions from Springer.
Clearly I reject these unprofessional actions and wish to distantiate myself from the situation they create. I therefore consider myself forced, with enormous reluctance, to ask for a formal position on this by IFIP, preferably by word from IFIP President and President-Elect (cc:). Failing that please consider this as my letter of resignation from the PC with immediate effect.
Kind regards
--Robert Meersman (from Perth, Australia)
============================== At 14:39 -0500 22/11/06, Joe Turner wrote:
Otto,
It would not be appropriate for us to provide the Springer proposal to anyone outside the official IFIP channels. In fact, I regret that I did not ask you not to distribute the proposal to others, because it definitely was my intent that the proposal be kept within the Pubs Committee. Normally IFIP handles contract matters by having a small group of appropriate IFIP members analyze proposals and make recommendations to the president/EB. My intention in this case was for the Pubs Committee to serve that function. Proposals submitted to IFIP are not public documents. It is fine to seek opinions on general situations from others, but we should not distribute proposals submitted in confidence to us.
Joe
---------- Original Message ----------- From: "Otto Spaniol" spaniol@informatik.rwth-aachen.de To: turner@cs.clemson.edu, "Arrigo Luigi Frisiani" arrigo.frisiani@unige.it Cc: "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, "Ron Waxman" r.waxman@computer.org Sent: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 16:54:27 +0200 Subject: Re: SSBM open access proposal
Dear Joe + others,
the discussion within TC6 becomes more and more intensive.
Harry Rudin (Switzerland) who proposed to try a DL with Google (for free!) but was stopped by the fact that Springer keeps all the copyrights etc. would like to that we ask nevertheless somebody in Google about the pro's and con's of the Springer proposal. Here is a part of his message:
- It is encouraging to hear that the discussions are in a
preliminary state.
- If I, speaking only for myself, have to give feedback at this
minute it would be to say that the contract is very good for Springer. Springer would have an ideal amount of flexibility while we in IFIP are held captive once again. All the obligations are on IFIP's side. I cannot deny that the Springer offer might be the best we can do but I would hope otherwise. The LNCS problem and the cost of producing CDs ought to be settled as part of the offer. Again, speaking only for myself, I agree with you and do not believe that we in IFIP can do the job ourselves.
- As to what you, Otto, call "Googlish speculations", again the
problem that Google sees is that our current conference publications are
assigned
to Springer. There may well be other problems, too, but IFIP's having assigned publication rights to Springer is the first stopping block. I think that would be clear to any business person.
- Otto, how about your asking the Publications Committee if we
can send a copy of the Springer offer to Ms.Cathy Gordon, Director, Business Development, cathyg@google.com, asking for comment?
Indeed, wouldn't it be a good idea to ask Ms. Cathy Gordon for a second opinion?
Best regards Otto
------- End of Original Message -------
----------------- Ende Weiterleitung -----------------