On 24 October 2011 19:07, Francis Davey <[email protected]> wrote: > I think Ernest Marples makes it fairly clear: > > http://pdcconsult.ernestmarples.com/ > > In short: the consultation looks very strongly geared to a model of > the PDC where all the data we want remains behind paywalls, but that > some chewed up offering is made available via the PDC.
[snip] > On a mySociety list I shouldn't have to explain why raw data behind a > paywall is a bad thing. Indeed not. [Chris's mail appeared at this point] On 24 October 2011 19:13, Chris Taggart <[email protected]> wrote: > Is the problem that you've seen lots of arguments, or that you haven't seen > an elevator-pitch type one that sums it up in a single sentence? The problem is [citation needed]. All right-thinking people agree that locking up data behind paywalls is a good idea. But I'm seeing arguments that tell me that the PDC is designed to close up datasets we already have access to. *Where does it say that?* I've looked. I can't find it anywhere. I'm also told that the consultation is set up to lean responders towards a not-preferred option. What *is* the preferred option within the confines of this consultation, all of whose options are phrased in the most vague terms possible? I can't argue against a point they're not obviously making. And nobody 'against' is showing me where it is. I'm just getting told that 'this is true' without references. If we're inferring, at least tell me what we're inferring *from*. Basically you appear to have skipped over a chapter somewhere and some of us (have had mail this afternoon off list so I know it's not just me) *need* that missing chapter to figure out what on earth the problem is. jh _______________________________________________ developers-public mailing list [email protected] https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public Unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/options/developers-public/archive%40mail-archive.com
