IP Caucus: past and future

[Gainer, Kim D]

From: Stedman, Kyle D
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:59 AM
To: intellectual-p...@googlegroups.com
Subject: IP Caucus: past and future

 

Hi folks,

 

Thanks for an awesome conference! I have all sorts of thoughts/plans/requests about the caucus:

 

1.      Timothy Amidon has agreed to serve as junior chair next year. Obviously, he’ll be perfect.

2.      2014 Caucus Meeting: I’ll soon start working on the proposal for our annual caucus meeting, which means I’ll need round table leaders. Our new bylaws (assuming the draft is accepted, editable here) say we’ll always have one table for “emerging legislative concerns,” and I suspect we should also have one on pedagogy and one on open access scholarship. Do you want to lead or co-lead one of those tables, and do you have other suggestions?

3.      Sponsored Panel: I heard two possibilities mentioned for this: the journal table suggested a panel on open access scholarship issues, and the pedagogy table suggested a multi-person (8?) roundtable of people sharing stories about tricky issues they’ve faced regarding plagiarism, copyright, fair use, etc. in their roles as teachers and scholars. I’d like to chair (or co-chair?) the latter regardless of if it’s our grey-box panel. Any strong feelings about how to approach this?

4.      Workshop: There were some murmurs that we should once again submit an “IP in the classroom” W-morning workshop, a plan I like but don’t want to lead. Volunteers? We also mentioned that if we put together a pamphlet (or even just a really solid list of links) of practical advice, we could distribute it both here and at the sponsored panel.

 

Assuming all of this goes through, that means I’m looking for a few different kinds of volunteers:

1.      Round-table leaders (say, 3 to 5 tables with 1 to 2 leaders each?)

2.      Organizer(s) of an open access publication panel (assuming that this is something we’re officially sponsoring in one manner or another)

3.      People who have wild stories (or at least kind of interesting stories) who are willing to informally speak as part of a “share IP stories” panel (which I’ll lead whether it’s our officially sponsored panel or not).

4.      2-3 workshop leaders (who can start with the awesome Google Doc of resources that Jen Michaels, Lanette Cadle, and I compiled last year)

 

What am I forgetting?

 

tl;dr: The IP caucus in 2014 may have as much as its regular meeting, a W workshop, and 2 panels led by caucus members. This is a ridiculously large commitment, unless everyone bands together all friendly-like.

 

Thanks for allowing me to lead,

 

Kyle

 

Kyle D. Stedman, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor of English

Rockford College· 5050 E. State St.· Rockford, IL 61108

815.394.5048 (office)

[Kim Gainer]

Kyle,

Laurie Cubbison and I would like to commit to leading the roundtable
on legal/legislative developments.

I'd also be interested in helping put together the pamphlet on
resources. Several IP Reports have pointed to resources, and it would
be good to pull that material together and augment it with other
sources.

Regards,

Kim

On Mar 18, 9:47 am, "Gainer, Kim D" <kgai...@RADFORD.EDU> wrote:
> From: Stedman, Kyle D
> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:59 AM
> To: intellectual-p...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: IP Caucus: past and future
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Thanks for an awesome conference! I have all sorts of thoughts/plans/requests about the caucus:
>
> 1.      Timothy Amidon has agreed to serve as junior chair next year. Obviously, he'll be perfect.
>

> 2.      2014 Caucus Meeting: I'll soon start working on the proposal for our annual caucus meeting, which means I'll need round table leaders. Our new bylaws (assuming the draft is accepted, editable here<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dUZSdD-PUeEI6oFhP5zyTfxTde6PmU0OA...>) say we'll always have one table for "emerging legislative concerns," and I suspect we should also have one on pedagogy and one on open access scholarship. Do you want to lead or co-lead one of those tables, and do you have other suggestions?

>
> 3.      Sponsored Panel: I heard two possibilities mentioned for this: the journal table suggested a panel on open access scholarship issues, and the pedagogy table suggested a multi-person (8?) roundtable of people sharing stories about tricky issues they've faced regarding plagiarism, copyright, fair use, etc. in their roles as teachers and scholars. I'd like to chair (or co-chair?) the latter regardless of if it's our grey-box panel. Any strong feelings about how to approach this?
>
> 4.      Workshop: There were some murmurs that we should once again submit an "IP in the classroom" W-morning workshop, a plan I like but don't want to lead. Volunteers? We also mentioned that if we put together a pamphlet (or even just a really solid list of links) of practical advice, we could distribute it both here and at the sponsored panel.
>
> Assuming all of this goes through, that means I'm looking for a few different kinds of volunteers:
>
> 1.      Round-table leaders (say, 3 to 5 tables with 1 to 2 leaders each?)
>
> 2.      Organizer(s) of an open access publication panel (assuming that this is something we're officially sponsoring in one manner or another)
>
> 3.      People who have wild stories (or at least kind of interesting stories) who are willing to informally speak as part of a "share IP stories" panel (which I'll lead whether it's our officially sponsored panel or not).
>
> 4.      2-3 workshop leaders (who can start with the awesome Google Doc of resources that Jen Michaels, Lanette Cadle, and I compiled last year)
>
> What am I forgetting?
>
> tl;dr: The IP caucus in 2014 may have as much as its regular meeting, a W workshop, and 2 panels led by caucus members. This is a ridiculously large commitment, unless everyone bands together all friendly-like.
>
> Thanks for allowing me to lead,
>
> Kyle
>
> Kyle D. Stedman, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor of English

> Rockford College* 5050 E. State St.* Rockford, IL 61108
> 815.394.5048 (office)

[Karen Lunsford]

Hi Kyle, I would like to commit to a table re: journal / publishers'
policies. I will also help lead the effort to collect stories about
chilling effects on fair use to publish as an article in the IP Annual
(if Clancy agrees) or in an IP Monthly Report.

Best, Karen

> --
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Intellectual Property Caucus" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to
> intellectual-propert...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>


--
Karen Lunsford, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Writing
Coordinator, Writing in the Disciplines
Director, Ph.D. Emphasis in Writing Studies
University of California, Santa Barbara
klun...@writing.ucsb.edu

[Charlie Lowe]

Looks like I missed out on some great ideas at the CCCC-IP meeting. Sorry I couldn't make it. 

I would suggest that any sponsored session should clearly fit with the CFP theme of "openness." The open access panel suggestion would be a better fit in that regard than the multi-person panel suggestion below. Maybe we might want to throw out some more ideas it to see if there are other alternatives? 

For example, it could be good to have a roundtable focus on the larger issue of what "openness" means to writing studies and why it is important from an IP studies/openness advocacy context. For example, there are always misconceptions in how those new to this topic interpret terms such as "open source" or "open access" (and I would argue misuse/misapply the concepts). As opposed to necessarily focusing on cutting edge IP scholarship that might be interesting to us, but won't bring the larger 4Cs audience along as well towards a better understanding of openness. 

A roundtable with more IP experts involved might also make it more featured session worthy than a few individual panel presentations that share a common theme. 

Charlie Lowe
Associate Professor of Writing
Grand Valley State University
low...@mail.gvsu.edu

--

[Stedman, Kyle D]

Hi all,

 

As I continue to work on drafting our proposal for next year’s caucus, I could use a bit of conversation on 3 things:

 

1.     If our application for standing group was accepted (which I haven’t heard for sure?), we need to have a solid plan on what our featured panel will feature. Charlie mentions below the good point that an open access panel would be perfect for the open theme. Is anyone interested in debating that, making another suggestion, or volunteering?

2.     For roundtables, so far I have down Laurie and Kim on legal/legislative developments and Karen on open access policies of journals and policies. I’d love to have a couple more tables and leaders—perhaps one on pedagogy and one on something else?

3.     Is anyone interested in proposing a W-morning workshop, perhaps along the lines of the one Lanette, Jen, and I proposed for the 2013 meeting? If so, I’d be happy to share our notes from last time.

 

In the meantime, I’ll send a draft of our caucus proposal to the list within a week for feedback.

 

Exciting times!

[Charlie Lowe]

What I was suggesting was even a broader topic panel on what is openness. I that call will result in a lot of assumptions about the meaning of that word in an IP context. A roundtable on that focus would be a very good choice given the CFP. 

Charlie Lowe
Associate Professor of Writing
Grand Valley State University
low...@mail.gvsu.edu

[Timothy Amidon]

Hi everyone,

I'm going to reach out to Jessica Reyman and see if she'll be at CCCCs this year (maybe she'll even see this email), but I'd be willing and excited to speak about the work she and I did surrounding content, data, and metadata. While we (as a Caucus) have been 'huge' advocates for the 'open source' movement and economy toward publishing within our field(s), I'm increasingly concerned about the erosion of 4th amendment protections with respect to internet information (i.e., CISPA) which pushes at an open economy. Why and how do we want certain content to be 'open' and whereas other content we want to be 'closed'. Increasingly, I think we have to clarify the distinctions between such seemingly polar ideologies: how do we reconcile tensions between the hope for open access, open source, and open economies while preserving some semblance of privacy, individuality, etc. Specifically, the work Jessica and I did surrounded content types and social-participatory web, with an ecological focus on ambiguities and contradictions between end-use policies, copyright law, and current practices associated with data mining. 

Regards,

Tim