Make Repository Open?

[katyhuff]

Hi Teddy, Quick question. How would you folks feel about developing the full paper version of this in the open (i.e. making the repository 'public') , now that the abstract has been submitted?

We can add an attribution license and everything, so that you will be legally protected from someone stealing your ideas. Also, you would still be the gatekeeper for any new additions. No one could add anything unless you grant them permission. But, it's absolutely up to you. Thoughts? Questions?

For the record, I just see the benefit of this being a contribution toward a general trend of transparency in science. I would love for the policy of the group to be "transparent unless there's a reason not to be". However, this is a very personal philosophical stand and I'm sensitive to the desire to maintain ownership over one's academic work until publication.

Let me know what you think. If you like the idea, I can help by adding a license that protects your ownership in various ways (CC-BY is my favorite for this kind of work).

[jbae11]

Sounds like a very cool idea, sure! I guess I'd like to know more about what this entails (and how to get the license and everything), but I'm open to it!

[katyhuff]

Great! A quick readthrough of Chapter 22 in the book will explain it better than I could in this comment. However, the crux is:

• BSD3 or CC-BY allow people to reuse and remix your work, but will mean people need to acknowledge any use of your work if they reuse it. (e.g., they have to cite you)
• BSD3 is common for code.
• CC-BY is common for written work.
• To 'get' the license, we just add it to the repository and add little notifications to the readme. I can do that.