[Neurobureau-hubs] next large group call

[Cameron Craddock]

Hey Oliver,

I think I might have finally gotten to your point. Is the neuro bureau a) a commune where people that work together and support projects that benefit the community or b) an international organization that is something like OHBM with several thousands of members?

I think that the NB began as a) and is currently a) with less commune and more video conferencing. There will likely always be an element of a) no matter how much of b) happens.

I am a little confused as to why you think that we are not open. We are always open to anyone that comes to us and wants to collaborate with us. We also actively seek out people that we want to work with and collaborate with them. We are actively making our work products available to the greater community, for free, in a sense openly collaborating with everyone who wishes to download what we share. The only requirement that we have for being a member of the nuero bureau is to openly attest to being a member of the neuro bureau.

We offer everyone on the face of the earth access to our ideas, data, methods, effort, the potential to collaborate, and the potential to stay on our couch. These are not luxuries reserved for the hubs. The difference between hubs and the rest of humanity is that they are willing to expend the extra energy to keep the project alive. The original ideal behind the hubs is that they could seed local communities, each one in a different location and a slightly different admixture of expertise (hence the name).  

I have little interest in creating another technical society. I just want a place where I can chill out and openly exchange ideas with others.

We are actually already a research institution in the state of Illinois (The Neuro Bureau Research Institute). Working on 503.1(c) status for the US, not sure how to do this in Europe. As soon as we get that we are going to begin writing for grants, and hopefully one day even employ people.

Cheers,
Cameron


On Jul 9, 2011, at 9:39 PM, Oliver Lyttelton wrote:

> 
> Hi Cameron,
> 
> Yes... I do remember the distinction between membership and leadership being made that evening, thank you for drawing this back into the discussion space. I think your email is direct and clear, and hopefully will provide a springboard for further thoughts. Some of mine, interspersed through what you said.
> 
> >Ideally in the future we will have a democratic process in which the >membership chooses the leadership, but at this point that is impractical.
> Okay, so what would it take to make it practical? If this is what you want then how do we get there?
> 
> >Here are a few things that I would like the Neuro Bureau to be:
> >- an independent research institution
> 
> This is news to me. Do you mean a full on institution that receives grant money and hires researchers? Interesting.
> 
> >- an organization that supports open neuroscience through openly >sharing tools, data, ideas, and effort
> 
> Sounds good, I guess this is where were heading. The work you have done for the ADHD project is amazing in this direction.
> 
> >- a diverse community of people who like brains and open collaboration
> 
> Okay... but a community of members, or a community of hubs? At the moment, I think it is only the latter, the "leadership" as you call it, which brings me back to wondering about how "open" we really are. What is it that we offer to non-hub "members" that we don't offer the entire imaging community? the parties and wearing the badge?
> 
> >- a positive force in the universe
> Nice sentiment, I agree
> >- something to be proud of
> Nice sentiment, I agree
> 

Cameron Craddock, PhD
cameron.craddock at gmail.com

Postdoctoral Fellow, Virginia Tech Carilion Research Institute

Co-Founder, The Neuro Bureau
http://www.neurobureau.org