Re: [Vo]:Freedom of Information and Open Science
On Oct 4, 2008, at 7:20 PM, Steven Krivit wrote: Hi Ed, Thanks for your reply. As for the advantage to the CMNS list to maintain privacy, this is a requirement for open, frank and sometimes critical discussion. For example, I would want to be able to tell a person that his data is wrong without that information being made public. Such public disclosure might cause embarrassment to the person or his loss of support. I would want to discuss the situation and have my concerns addressed so that the work could be improved in the future. But Ed, that makes no sense at all. Why on earth would you send something potentially embarrassing to an Internet list which is so loosely regulated as the CMNS list instead of sending the email directly to the person and only that person? Well Steve, a compromise has to be made. If the issue I had with another person were serious, I would, as you suggest, use private e- mail. However, a discussion within a group can frequently get more information to the person and in a more acceptable form than a private discussion. We all count on privacy being maintained by no one outside of the group taking an interest in what is said. You have taken an interest. As a result, you have created an issue we have to resolve. On the other side of the coin, I want criticism from other people about my work without having to feel the risk of a public display of my faults. I could do this by private e-mail, which I sometimes do, but the list takes advantage of the different ideas and experiences that a group provides. I certainly see and agree with that benefit of the list. But you say, you would not reveal such information. Perhaps not, but you are already blaimed for shutting down Ross' work by showing its flaws in public. While I agree, you were not the cause of Ross' problems, nevertheless you showed a policy that other people fear. What policy was that? The policy I'm referring to is to publish information that is potentially damaging to an individual. While I agree, some branches of journalism do this for a living and they do a great service when the information impacts on us all. Nevertheless, not all information has a general impact, hence does not need to be made public. Generally, a good reporter makes a judgement based on the desired result. An ordinary reporter can get away with this because he works on a broad range of issues and with a large group of people. You, on the other hand, are in a narrow field and have to maintain relationships with a small group of people. This requires a more careful and nuanced approach. Careful and nuanced approach: You mean like what you told me on July 19? Yes, this is one consideration. However, each potential public revelation will have different nuances, some of which are important and some can be ignored. I can't anticipate all possibilities. If publication is done with permission of the individual, the nuance no longer matters. "Your article about George and later about Macy created an impression that you are more concerned with the 'truth' than with people. This makes people uncertain about who might be next. Consequently, you need to be more careful in how you reveal the truth about the field. Eventually, the field will be big enough and so well accepted, a little plainly spoken truth would not cause you any problem." I hope this makes sense without the distraction of feeling that I'm being hostile. Well, I'm not sure about your personal assessment of who and what I am (media,) - I will need to ponder that a bit - but in general I do appreciate your polite message. Normally, I would send this as a private response, since it does not concern anyone on Vortex. However, you sent this to me through Vortex so I'm responding the same way. I apologize to people who find this exchange unimportant. I think this is a valuable topic to be discussed on Vortex since it pertains to some key aspects of how CMNS is reported. I for one, benefit from the ideas and critiques from the members of this list. And I certainly have nothing to hide. I respect this approach and hope to continue the discussion. Perhaps to save other people from the need to delete this, we continue in private. Best regards, Ed Best regards, Steve
Re: [Vo]:Freedom of Information and Open Science
Hi Ed, Thanks for your reply. First of all, the CMNS list is not protected from the media. The media can, as I explained previously, learn of anything that is said. If a reporter wants to publish anything, he can do this and we cannot stop him. You, on the other hand are not the media and you are not any ordinary reporter. You are trying to help the field. In addition, you have important friendships and relationships in the field based on trust and respect. When you propose to act like an ordinary reporter, you damage that trust. You've expressed some interesting ideas about who and what I am. I'll have to think about that a bit before responding further on that point. As for the advantage to the CMNS list to maintain privacy, this is a requirement for open, frank and sometimes critical discussion. For example, I would want to be able to tell a person that his data is wrong without that information being made public. Such public disclosure might cause embarrassment to the person or his loss of support. I would want to discuss the situation and have my concerns addressed so that the work could be improved in the future. But Ed, that makes no sense at all. Why on earth would you send something potentially embarrassing to an Internet list which is so loosely regulated as the CMNS list instead of sending the email directly to the person and only that person? On the other side of the coin, I want criticism from other people about my work without having to feel the risk of a public display of my faults. I could do this by private e-mail, which I sometimes do, but the list takes advantage of the different ideas and experiences that a group provides. I certainly see and agree with that benefit of the list. But you say, you would not reveal such information. Perhaps not, but you are already blaimed for shutting down Ross' work by showing its flaws in public. While I agree, you were not the cause of Ross' problems, nevertheless you showed a policy that other people fear. What policy was that? An ordinary reporter can get away with this because he works on a broad range of issues and with a large group of people. You, on the other hand, are in a narrow field and have to maintain relationships with a small group of people. This requires a more careful and nuanced approach. Careful and nuanced approach: You mean like what you told me on July 19? "Your article about George and later about Macy created an impression that you are more concerned with the 'truth' than with people. This makes people uncertain about who might be next. Consequently, you need to be more careful in how you reveal the truth about the field. Eventually, the field will be big enough and so well accepted, a little plainly spoken truth would not cause you any problem." I hope this makes sense without the distraction of feeling that I'm being hostile. Well, I'm not sure about your personal assessment of who and what I am (media,) - I will need to ponder that a bit - but in general I do appreciate your polite message. Normally, I would send this as a private response, since it does not concern anyone on Vortex. However, you sent this to me through Vortex so I'm responding the same way. I apologize to people who find this exchange unimportant. I think this is a valuable topic to be discussed on Vortex since it pertains to some key aspects of how CMNS is reported. I for one, benefit from the ideas and critiques from the members of this list. And I certainly have nothing to hide. Best regards, Steve
Re: [Vo]:Freedom of Information and Open Science
On Oct 4, 2008, at 5:47 PM, Steven Krivit wrote: Ed, You would demonstrate your intention to communicate without hostility by refraining from suggesting what you think I do or do not understand. Rather than continue a polemic with me, perhaps you would be so kind as to explain to me your view as to why you think it is beneficial for the CMNS list to be, by default, protected from the media? First of all, the CMNS list is not protected from the media. The media can, as I explained previously, learn of anything that is said. If a reporter wants to publish anything, he can do this and we cannot stop him. You, on the other hand are not the media and you are not any ordinary reporter. You are trying to help the field. In addition, you have important friendships and relationships in the field based on trust and respect. When you propose to act like an ordinary reporter, you damage that trust. As for the advantage to the CMNS list to maintain privacy, this is a requirement for open, frank and sometimes critical discussion. For example, I would want to be able to tell a person that his data is wrong without that information being made public. Such public disclosure might cause embarrassment to the person or his loss of support. I would want to discuss the situation and have my concerns addressed so that the work could be improved in the future. On the other side of the coin, I want criticism from other people about my work without having to feel the risk of a public display of my faults. I could do this by private e-mail, which I sometimes do, but the list takes advantage of the different ideas and experiences that a group provides. But you say, you would not reveal such information. Perhaps not, but you are already blaimed for shutting down Ross' work by showing its flaws in public. While I agree, you were not the cause of Ross' problems, nevertheless you showed a policy that other people fear. An ordinary reporter can get away with this because he works on a broad range of issues and with a large group of people. You, on the other hand, are in a narrow field and have to maintain relationships with a small group of people. This requires a more careful and nuanced approach. I hope this makes sense without the distraction of feeling that I'm being hostile. Normally, I would send this as a private response, since it does not concern anyone on Vortex. However, you sent this to me through Vortex so I'm responding the same way. I apologize to people who find this exchange unimportant. Best regards, Ed Thanks, Steve At 12:06 PM 10/4/2008, you wrote: Steve, let me make myself completely clear without any hostility being intended. The CMNS discussion is considered by the members to be private. Although I and everyone involved agrees, there is no way this intention can be enforced, a fact about which you do not need to remind us. In addition, the site is not closed to the press. Anyone, yourself included, can join if they agree to the rules. The rule is that nothing will be published without permission. You or anyone could seek permission and no doubt get such permission if they were trusted by the person from whom permission was requested. In other words, nothing is secret, nothing is being hidden, and the press can get involved if they use a little common courtesy. In your case, you say you will not abide by the rules, you resigned from the group, and then had other people send you the discussion. In addition, you insist that the group is attempting to interfere with freedom of the press. This approach simply shows that you do not understand the situation and want to continue a confrontation. If instead, you had said that you understood the wish and need for privacy, even though it is unenforceable, and would request permission to publish any of the discussion, then the issue would have dissappeared and you would be welcomed into the discussion. No doubt, most people would then give you permission to publish their discussion. Ludwik has gotten permission on many occasions using this approach. I hope I made clear why you got the response you did. The issue has nothing to do with any hostility or any lack of your support for the CNMS community. The issue is ONLY about your stated attitude about publishing the CMNS discussions without permission. Regards, Ed On Oct 4, 2008, at 1:35 PM, Steven Krivit wrote: Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 11:33:29 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Steven Krivit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Freedom of Information and Open Science At 07:34 PM 10/2/2008, you wrote: and this is cross posted here becuase? Thanks for asking. The Vortex list is, in my opinion, a group of fairly enlightened and aware group of individuals who have an interest in CMNS and free speech. Here's the background: I do not have a problem with McKubre and there is no message of h
[Vo]:Freedom of Information and Open Science
Ed, You would demonstrate your intention to communicate without hostility by refraining from suggesting what you think I do or do not understand. Rather than continue a polemic with me, perhaps you would be so kind as to explain to me your view as to why you think it is beneficial for the CMNS list to be, by default, protected from the media? Thanks, Steve At 12:06 PM 10/4/2008, you wrote: Steve, let me make myself completely clear without any hostility being intended. The CMNS discussion is considered by the members to be private. Although I and everyone involved agrees, there is no way this intention can be enforced, a fact about which you do not need to remind us. In addition, the site is not closed to the press. Anyone, yourself included, can join if they agree to the rules. The rule is that nothing will be published without permission. You or anyone could seek permission and no doubt get such permission if they were trusted by the person from whom permission was requested. In other words, nothing is secret, nothing is being hidden, and the press can get involved if they use a little common courtesy. In your case, you say you will not abide by the rules, you resigned from the group, and then had other people send you the discussion. In addition, you insist that the group is attempting to interfere with freedom of the press. This approach simply shows that you do not understand the situation and want to continue a confrontation. If instead, you had said that you understood the wish and need for privacy, even though it is unenforceable, and would request permission to publish any of the discussion, then the issue would have dissappeared and you would be welcomed into the discussion. No doubt, most people would then give you permission to publish their discussion. Ludwik has gotten permission on many occasions using this approach. I hope I made clear why you got the response you did. The issue has nothing to do with any hostility or any lack of your support for the CNMS community. The issue is ONLY about your stated attitude about publishing the CMNS discussions without permission. Regards, Ed On Oct 4, 2008, at 1:35 PM, Steven Krivit wrote: Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 11:33:29 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Steven Krivit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Freedom of Information and Open Science At 07:34 PM 10/2/2008, you wrote: and this is cross posted here becuase? Thanks for asking. The Vortex list is, in my opinion, a group of fairly enlightened and aware group of individuals who have an interest in CMNS and free speech. Here's the background: I do not have a problem with McKubre and there is no message of his at this time that is of interest for me to publish. This thread was not initiated from anything to do with McKubre and I'm not sure why he jumped into the thread with a call for tighter information control. I'm not sure why Storms has jumped in and is casting aspersions about me. Storms' hostile statements are unfortunate and puzzling, but that is another matter, the present matter has nothing to do with McKubre and Storms. This thread was initiated by a posting by Marissa Little to the CMNS list, not McKubre. I engaged with the Little's (Scott and Marissa) of Earthtech International in response to information that they sent to the CMNS community via the CMNS list. This thread had to do with their "failure to verify" the excess heat claims of John Dash. I engaged in a few message exchanges with the Little's copying Dash and McKubre. I included McKubre because I consider him a world- respected expert in calorimetry. Haiko and Ed seem to have jumped to the conclusion that I have some misplaced interest that is un-supportive of the CMNS community. No, gentlemen, nothing could be further from the truth. Your CMNS list confidentiality rule may give you the illusion of privacy, but you do not have privacy. Your presumption of privacy is a self-delusion, naiive, and dangerous. If you want privacy, a) confirm the identification of all the members of your CMNS list and b) set up nondisclosure agreements. By closing the list from the press, you not only are sheltering honest and supportive discussions from exposure, but are also sheltering and harboring people with less-benevolent motives. I appreciate all of the critical and thoughtful remarks make on this Vortex list. It is a valuable resource. Steve
