Re: [802SEC] July opening SEC agenda is attached--please review
>The allocated amounts of time, I believe, are insufficient for lines:
One of these items is "Funding Model Task Force update" (J. Carlo, 2 minutes).
I agree that I'd like more time to hear this.
I read an item today (see below) that resonates with this issue. It
is a possible governmental action that would seriously impact IEEE's
financial model in technical publishing (though not in standards).
The related web site <http://www.plos.org> says:
>The current manner in which science is published places the
>interests of publishers before those of the public. This closed
>system of scientific publication greatly diminishes the value of
>public investment (over $50 billion dollars per year invested by US
>taxpayers alone) in scientific and medical research.
The idea of the item below is that the government wants the work it
paid for to be readily available. I think that many standards
developers feel the same way.
>3. PUBLIC ACCESS TO SCIENCE: WITH LIBERTY AND RESEARCH FOR ALL.
>On Wednesday, Rep. Martin O. Sabo (D-MN) released a draft of the
>Public Access to Science Act, which will eliminate copyright
>protection for publications stemming from federally funded
>research. The laudable goal of this measure is to make research
>easily accessible via the internet. Sabo's move appears to
>further the goals of the Public Library of Science (PLoS),
>chaired by Harold Varmus, a group that wants to see scientific
>publishing move away from the subscription-based economics, which
>they claim limit the availability of the research. PLoS will
>release its first "open-access" journal, PLoS Biology, in
>October, and plans to release PLoS Medicine next year.
>THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND and THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY.
>Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the
>University or the American Physical Society, but they should be.
>Archives of What's New can be found at http://www.aps.org/WN