Recording available here: https://youtu.be/t87Q8YS0WVs  –  Notes available here: https://cryptpad.fr/pad/#/2/pad/view/j-A70cO9m3JTftS9mnFTSX4Nn5o2SVOAKMu4MiEnl80/

Would it be possible to add research support staff in the first paragraph? With the current phrasing I would identify as a librarian although I would not necessarily classify myself as such.

Corrected

Thanks for the comment.

Corrected

Thanks for the comment.

I would challenge the assumption that more open is equitable. For whom?

Whilst many researchers would benefit from greater access to the literature, the make-it-open doctrine perhaps ignores the asymmetry between many individual's ability to leverage AI to process a corpus of literature, and the ability of major information companies to do the same. The literature can be processed by machine to promote discovery and invention. Will many open publications feed closed patent-protected proprietary technology? Is this fair?

I believe that the subject is overdue for discussion. I believe researchers should be free to do as they please, and I do not advocate Ludditry.

I presented in Montreal on the subject. My proposal for the subject to be a lunchtime discussion was not accepted in Edinburgh.

I believe there are enough organisations supporting the mantra of everything open. I would rather that Force11 remain a forum for the discussion of diverse opinions.

And in terms of endorsements, by whom and how are the endorsements to be decided? Until that is explained and agreed I would prefer that Force11 make no endorsements.

Thank you

I think the decision to (potentially) issue endorsements is a positive one, but I wonder if this is at odds with some of the content of the third paragraph: Most importantly, if "the organization does not presume to speak for its members," what is an endorsement? It seems to me that the reason endorsements from membership organizations can be so powerful is because they are on behalf of their members, at least collectively. It's a big deal to be able to say, "We are a community of more than 3,000 people with a stake in scholarly communication, and we believe X is the best way forward." It seems like a vague cop-out to say "We endorse X, but our members might not, who knows."

The other part may be more of a semantic concern, but paragraph 3 also still says "Force11 [sic] is not an advocacy organization." If the organization is going to be making endorsements, that's a pretty straightforward example of an act of advocacy. Would "is not primarily an advocacy organization" be more appropriate?