Be compassionate and understanding with collaborator concerns

[gwaybio]

This is probably one of the most important barriers, and one that is probably practiced most differently across open science users. And this rule is especially true when collaborators drive the project, and computational analyses are secondary.

There needs to be a careful balance between militant open science and understanding alternative perspectives. Opening the conversation to how open science can benefit everyone involved in the project and outside community, speed science, and foster additional collaborations is beneficial, even if open science practice is not decided.

I think there could be a lot more said about this rule and I encourage others to provide their thoughts.

[allaway]

I love this as a rule. I think "militant open science" is an underappreciated problem. Great discussion of this here: https://twitter.com/kirstie_j/status/990635614121930753
and here https://twitter.com/Julie_B92/status/871268434750959617

[allaway]

Perhaps this rule could be simplified to 'Prioritize inclusion' ?

[gwaybio]

My goal with this rule originally was to be more specific in regards to primary collaborators generating data directly.

But i think this scope is definitely worth discussing!

While inclusivity is definitely a positive, and we certainly can discuss in the context of compassion toward collab, let's leave this rule to be more specific.

Perhaps we can add inclusivity as a different rule!

[gwaybio]

Important to note that compassion enables discussion and discussion permits greater understanding, which can lead to open science solutions that maximally benefit

[gwaybio]

Sometimes being stern can come across as militant. Sometimes being stern is the best strategy. Open science is one of those sensitive things that can be easily branded on a vocal advocate. The militant label can also be branded easily, especially in the case in which your advocacy is sternly presented to a new collaborator.

The militant spectrum of advocacy is both good and bad, but being aware of how you are being perceived as an advocate is the first step to combating the negative aspects of militant open science (shut down conversations, collaborators do not feel comfortable sharing concerns, collaborators reduce openness themselves, etc.)