[Neurobureau-hubs] next large group call

[Pierre Bellec]

This conversation is starting to have an interesting spin. The debate has
started !

Here is a couple of comments, and a summary of what I'd like the neurobureau
to be in the future.

  * The neurobureau really is who we are. What excites me about the
neurobureau is to engage with people such as Daniel, Cameron, Alex, Clare,
Oliver, Catie, Heather, Nathalie, to name a few who I had wonderful
discussions with over the past couple of weeks (sorry for those I forgot).
The roots of it is a mixture of science and social. Great principles don't
matter too much at the end of the day. I totally agree with Cameron when he
says that everyone is a member of the neurobureau. But because of who we
are, people like Joshua are more likely to actively join us than, well,
someone not like Joshua. I think it's fine this way. After joining, it's up
to the people to actually find their place in one or multiple ones of our
projects, or to seed their own.
  * I think we need slightly more formal organization. To elaborate on the
few guidelines I had sent in my first email, we would have :
    * A core set of members pushing a general agenda, like giving a legal
status to the bureau, organizing large group calls, updating the website to
advertise our initiatives, etc ... We need to have at least one large group
call a month to discuss projects advancements and new ideas.
    * As many ad-hoc work-groups as needed, as long as there are people to
actively sustain their growth. Within each work-group, we need at least a
leader. For the art at HBM there were other roles that could easily be defined,
like dealing with OHBM, contacting artists, posting on the blog, etc. It's
up to every member to step up and be part of the actions. But it's up to the
leaders to make sure everyone in the bureau knows about our grand plans, so
that interested members can actually step up.
    * We need money. Some work groups could be organized around the idea of
a grant application. I already started something like that with Alex, Clare,
Daniel and Cameronn targeted at human frontier. I think that the work-group
who gets the grant should be free to manage it. Hopefully, some of the money
we'll get can serve the greater purposes of the bureau. One thing we need to
put into place, funded or not, is a open data & tool sharing network. That's
Mike's idea and I have no doubt this should be one of our future (important)
goals. There are several ways to try to get that funded. We can discuss it
during the call, or maybe we should have a dedicated work-group.
    * We need to have a publication plan per work group, if appropriate.
Authorship should be discussed as early as possible, so people know what
their expectations should be. I have a pretty inclusive view when it comes
to authorship, but in any case that should be discussed on a per-case basis.
    * I believe we need senior members. And also, we would need to ask about
5 seniors who are morally very much in-line with the bureau (or ahead) to
join an advisory board (I am thinking about at least Mike Milham, Xavier
Castellanos, Alan Evans). We would ask for their opinion by email or
conference call regarding our main strategic initiatives, like grants,
workshops, etc ... What we're trying to achieve is not completely new, and
there is some experience out there we could really use. I actually had this
kind of discussions informally already, along with other members, and they
turned out to be amazingly useful. We should turn this into a formal
mechanism.

Looking forward to see you all next week, please fill in the doodle if you
haven't yet,

Pierre Bellec, PhD
Chercheur adjoint
Département d'informatique et de recherche opérationnelle
Centre de recherche de l'institut de Gériatrie de Montréal
4565, Chemin Queen-Mary
Montréal (Québec)
H3W 1W5
Université de Montréal
http://simexp-lab.org/brainwiki/doku.php?id=pierrebellec
(001)(514) 340 3540 #3367




2011/7/9 Oliver Lyttelton <oliver.c.lyttelton at gmail.com>

>
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nitrc.org/pipermail/neurobureau-hubs/attachments/20110709/682840ef/attachment-0001.html