Thanks for bringing this up, Cheryl. This one is a follow-up consultation ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/03/08/public-access-policy-update ), so there is no need to rehash all the usual arguments. Instead, this one is aimed at broadening the range of feedback to people and institutions/ organizations outside federally funded research, where we fit in nicely. A point clearly underrepresented in the previous rounds as well as in the OA debates in general is the reuse of Open Access resources, and here, WMF could make a string case. The consultation on open access comes along with a similar public consultation on data sharing ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-11-04/pdf/2011-28621.pdf ). We have previously submitted a comment on a similar consultation by the EU: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Committee/Areas_of_interest/Open-ac… . I have set up http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Committee/Areas_of_interest/Open-ac… to coordinate our activities. Cheers, Daniel On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Cheryl Moy <moyc(a)umich.edu> wrote: > Hi Everyone! > > This caught my attention on Monday, and I think that there are many in > the group who would be interested in helping to submit a response to > OSTP (Office of Science and Technology Policy). > > http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/11/04/2011-28623/request-for-i… > > Take a look at the call, I also believe that the WMF might also be > putting together a response? I am not 100% sure, but maybe we all could > coordinate something. I am also not familiar with how responses are > submitted hopefully someone in the group knows! The response is due Jan > 2, 2012. > > Best, > Cheryl (user:MichChemGSI) > > _______________________________________________ > RCom-l mailing list > RCom-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l >

Daniel! It's great! you did a lot of really good work on it. Do you need an example for 3b? It is the idea of preservation a great example of this is the NASA Landsat data in which for a time was gov then went private and back to gov when during the time it was private it was not well preserved not well maintained (the data did not have as much breath because the private institution did not take care of the satellite and maintaining it as well as when NASA had hold of it). If you think that this example would be helpful let me know and I can try to dig up the dates for the back and forth. I don't know this right now on the top of my head but it might be in the History of Landsat. I don't make any promises though but if you think that an example is not necessary I won't work so hard to find it. Thanks! Again, thanks for putting this together! Cheryl On 1/11/12 3:22 PM, Daniel Mietchen wrote: _______________________________________________ RCom-l mailing list RCom-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/rcom-l