This is my response to Gerard, originally off-list, but which he feels needs to be made public.
Dear Gerard, 1. I think any opinion (collective or individual) by now is affected by the ongoing discussion. 2. I am not sure how this would make the discussion less public. 3. Yes, we should continue to seek consensus, but perhaps it may be useful to see if the consensus already exists. Or if the proposition of storing the raw data (which I personally support, but haven't always) faces strong headwinds. 4. Any online poll is always skewed towards the people who care enough about the issue. My concern was that I don't really know how many people support this. Granted, the right decision is not always supported by the majority and "democracy" has its obvious limits, but what we gain by this is some idea as to where people actually stand. My hope is that the poll would show that most people support the deposition of raw images. This should presumably help your argument (which, again, I wholeheartedly support) that this has to be done. If it shows the opposite... well, then we have the work to do to convince them. And perhaps listen to what their arguments are. I think there are two questions regarding the raw data deposition (not necessarily in that order): 1. How to do it. That is what the other thread is dealing with and my overall feeling is that difficulties have been largely exaggerated early on. You are right that concrete steps can be taken. 2. Do we need to do it. To me, it's no-brainer, but some responses seem to suggest not everyone is really on board. Again, I am sure this has to be done, but consensus in this area is equally important. HTH, Ed. On Thu, 2011-10-27 at 17:25 +0100, Gerard Bricogne wrote: > Dear Ed, > > I am really puzzled by this initiative. It assumes that there is a > pre-formed "collective opinion" out there, independent from and unaffected > by the exchanges of views that have taken place on this BB, that would be > worth more than the conclusions we might reach by pursuing these exchanges. > > The thread you are obviously deciding to dissociate yourself from was > initiated in response to a suggestion that views on this topic would > usefully be aired publicly on this BB rather than posted off-list to Tom > Terwilliger, who immediately agreed that this was a good idea and has been > very supportive of this discussion. > > Shouldn't we continue to try and put our heads together to reach a > consensus, rather than collect opinions that may be little more than prior > prejudices? > > What shall we gain by such a vote? I may be misunderstanding what you > have in mind, of course :-) . > > > With best wishes, > > Gerard. > > -- > On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 12:08:24PM -0400, Ed Pozharski wrote: > > I am curious as to what the collective opinion on the raw data > > deposition actually is across the cross-section of the macromolecular > > crystallography community subscribed to the bb. So, if you have a > > second and a formed opinion on the idea of the depositions of the raw > > data, please vote here > > > > http://tinyurl.com/3qlwwsh > > > > I'll post the results as soon as they look settled. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Ed. > > > > -- > > "Hurry up before we all come back to our senses!" > > Julian, King of Lemurs > -- Oh, suddenly throwing a giraffe into a volcano to make water is crazy? Julian, King of Lemurs
