Just to let you know that my summary posting, below, with the balance
slightly toward FOR has now scared up 5 more AGAINSTs and one FOR,
tilting it the other way. That still leaves a 95% silent majority
unaccounted for... but (and this is the last time I will do this till
the outcome is announced friday!) the AmSci cross-postings will
end Friday if the present plurality (12 A, 9 F, 4 N) prevails.
(And it's stil not clear whether this should apply to JISC-dev
only, or both JISC-dev and ELib!)
Chrs, Stevan
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> Dear JISC and ELib List members:
>
> Here are the results of the straw poll (mostly JISC, some error because
> there were 1-2 responses from E-Lib too):
>
> AGAINST continuing AmSci Cross-Postings:
> 7 out of 19 (37% of sample of 19, 1.4% of jisc total 509)
>
> FOR continuing AmSci Cross-Postings:
> 8 out of 19 (42% of sample of 19, 1.5% of jisc total 509)
>
> EITHER/OR (some classification judgment madeby me here!)
> 4 out of 19 (21% of sample of 19, 0.7% of jisc total 509)
>
> So it's just about neck and neck and the overall sense
> seems to be to continue but with fewer cross-postings.
>
> Polls are still open till Friday! The silent 97% still
> have time to vote if this trend is against their preference.
>
> Cheers, Stevan
>
> --------------------------------------
> AGAINST continuing AmSci Cross-Postings:
> 7 out of 19 (37% of sample of 19, 1.4% of jisc total 509)
>
> 1. Can I tentatively suggest that such cross-posting runs counter to normal
> netiquette and that it would be better for the discussion to be carried
> out on a single list - probably the American Scientist Open Access Forum?
>
> 2. Thanks for consulting. I agree with Andy. I would prefer not to receive
> the American Scientist Open Access Forum content on JISC-Development.
>
> 3. I agree.
>
> 4. I broadly agree with Andy on this. I have found your postings to be useful
> at times: they have increased my awareness of issues in the eJournal / open
> access world. But there are too many of them, and there's a danger that
> I'll get into the habit of deleting them without reading them and so miss
> something interesting. Perhaps a summary to the list every now and then
> would be more useful.
>
> 5. I agree too. In fact, the cross-posting currently discourages me from
> signing up to the Am-sci forum to follow the full discussion. With the
> situation as it is now, I would end up seeing two copies of a proportion
> of the messages thru JISC-DEV, whereas if Am-sci was the main forum
> where I followed open access discussion, I could manage my email more
> efficently.
>
> 6. I am against cross posting, primarily because the reply threads either
> diverge or are in themselves repeated.
>
> 7. I vote to stop cross-posting of the open-access discussion on
> jisc-development and lis-elib.
>
> FOR continuing AmSci Cross-Postings:
> 8 out of 19 (42% of sample of 19, 1.5% of jisc total 509)
>
> 1. I appreciate these messages being posted to lis-elib.
>
> 2. I would prefer the cross posting to the JISC lists to continue. Yours
> are by far the most interesting items that come through, but I need to
> monitor the list for other items. Suppose I could subscribe to Amsci
> but... so much to do and so little time etc etc. Let us know what the
> decision is.
>
> 3. There may be a case for posting to just one of the two JISCmail
> lists (I'm on both, and suspect, as Andy Powell does, that the
> overlap is higher than 152) but I would not support Andy's
> suggestion of restricting the discussion to the AmSci forum.
>
> 4. I am a subscriber to <[log in to unmask]>. I only have a
> passing interest in self-archive (I *do* support it!), and have enjoyed
> receiving your posting from time to time. However, they are sometimes
> rather excessive (for my interests!) I just delete them.
> I would probably not subscribe to a special-purpose list, so would
> encourage you to continue to post to <[log in to unmask]> ,
> but only occasionally...
>
> 5. Your straw poll was a bit too quick for me. I value your OA postings to
> jisc-development, and read them, and would
> be sorry to lose them from that list.
>
> 6. For. Keep it up.
>
> 7. Vote to stay on this list please!
> Don't mind registering with AmSci if I have to, (following the thread as is
> related to my PhD studies) but would like it to stay in this list!
> Thanks you for all you do
>
> 8. I vote for leaving things as they are. If I end up with multiple occurrences
> of the same post as a result of subscribing to both JISC and ELib that's OK.
> It is going to take me longer to subscribe to AMsci then it is to delete
> multiple posts
>
> EITHER/OR:
> 4 out of 19 (21% of sample of 19, 0.7% of jisc total 509)
>
> 1. Is it not beyond the wit of the good folk at jisc-mail to configure their
> service such that a multiple posting result in just ONE message being sent
> to the end-user (perhaps with a note to say which lists it had been posted
> to)?
>
> 2. Not sure what the real answer is - we need a smart one - it is useful for
> people in the UK to be aware of key relevant postings if they don't belong
> to the main OA one. OA is only one aspect of many people's work interests.
> The sheer volume is part of the problem especially if you're away even for
> a short while or not on your normal mail reader.
> But I do get swamped as I belong to AMSCI, elib, jisc-dev and oai-eprints
> and it takes time even to eliminate copies or digests - apart from the need
> to read my lists on other subjects (which I try to minimise). I currently
> try to delete 3 out of the 4 as soon as I get one or else do it in bulk
> later. But then I'm in danger of missing mail I need to respond to. I
> sometimes miss a non mailing list email from you as a result of the others
> flooding in!.
>
> 3. It's not so much that the postings are not of interest as that getting
> multiple copies is irritating, though I suppose we can just delete as we go.
> I'd prefer there to be far fewer multiple posts, and only where a specific
> message is likely to be of interest to another audience who might not have
> an ongoing interest in an issue catered for by a particular list. Thanks to
> Andy for raising it.
>
> 4. I like getting the messages but I could join the American Scientist list.
> So a bit of an either or from me.
>
>
>
|