Henden, showing his usual distain for any view that differs from his own, thought that my previous post was disrepectful. Oh dear (not)!
So I wrote - I have enormous respect for the work carried out by the individual members of the AAVSO.
However it
was not these members who made the decision to snub the international
groups who have been generous enough to share their members’ data with the
AAVSO. The decision by a tiny sub-group to adopt a “what was yours has become
everybody’s but some of what is ours will remain ours” approach is unquestionably
a spectacular public-relations disaster.
I agree that the light curve generator identifies the
affiliation of the observer but, crucially, the WebObs facility does not do so.
Any observer using the individual results will almost inevitably do so without
regard to the affiliation of source observer. My view that the best these overseas
data providers can expect from any subsequent use of their results is a generic
comment along the lines of, “Thank you to those AAVSO members who provided the
results” remains unchanged. That seems wholly unacceptable.
Neither
by-the-way was it the ordinary members of the AAVSO who decided to move the
thread on the Bright Star Monitor Epoch Photometry Database to the AAVSO
Governance forum so that the thread starter (that would be me) and other
non-members of AAVSO (surely those most disadvantaged by the decision) could neither
see nor contribute to the debate.
Sadly this is not the
first time that a policy of censoring views that differ from that of HQ’s staff
seems to have been adopted. I’m thinking
here specifically of the demise of the AAVSO Data Mining Section and the
humiliating fiasco of the First Survey
of Professional and Amateur Collaborations in Astronomy - although there
are other examples.
No comments:
Post a Comment