The "agreement between Green and Gold in the form of a mutually accepted simple overview of pro's and con's of both options" of which you are dreaming is in fact precisely what prevails today; it is indeed the result of "contingency based choice" -- and it is not advancing things, nor generating much success, anywhere near quickly enough. Universal OA is still far away: almost as far as it was a decade ago (though the repositories and the few green OA mandates and gold OA journals have brought us a little closer).
It is this simplistic, unreflective status quo that I am trying (unsuccessfully) to challenge and disrupt. It is so far too rigid for reasoning or evidence to penetrate it. But although it may be "an operational or tactical" futility, I have not yet given up. (in that sense you are right that I have been "relentless.")
My main point is so simple that it can be summarised in a single sentence: "Institutions and funders should mandate green OA and they should on no account promote or fund gold OA until and unless they have first mandated green OA." (That's it; all the rest is in the reasons and the evidence on which that stern-sounding injunction is based.)
But I am interested in knowing (preferably offline, because I doubt the jisc-repositories list shares my curiosity) the basis on which you imagine that my "rigidity prevents... contingency based choice":
Do you imagine that I have any power or authority whatsoever to prevent people from making their own choices? (For I assure you that if I did, they would not be making the unfortunate choices they are making today -- and I bet you that progress toward universal OA would be incomparably faster!)
But I continue to think that an on-list discussion of my rigidity is a waste of list-member's time, whereas a (multilateral) discussion of my reasoning would be a refreshing tactical and operational change.
(The usual pattern is that I post detailed, substantive critiques, and no one responds -- or responds just to tell me that I am being rigid and should "stop the relentless internal debates in the OA movement"...)
Best wishes, Stevan
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
LW: But shouldn't you accept then that different repository managers may have various 'mandates'? You seem so rigid in this.
SH: Yes, I am rigid as rigid can be on what makes sense and what does not. But why does this trouble you? I have absolutely no power. It is not I who set repository managers' or repository managers' mandates: All I do is try (mostly in vain!) to help them make more sense out of what they are trying to do.
But for this sort of nonsubstantive discussion, I really don't think this list is quite the place.
My prior postings were trying to point out the profound problems with the Chair of the UK Council of Research Repositories arguments for taking a "gold only route." I have no idea whatsoever whether anyone has taken any notice of the substantive points I raised. Not one of them has been taken up in the subsequent postings (except by Steve Hitchcock, but we already see eye to eye).
I really don't think, however, that a public discussion of my rigidity is going to advance things, do you?
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">SH: And my mandate, Charles (if you will permit me!) is to continue describing, as clearly and as concretely as I can, what it is that I take to be the mandate of repositories, repository managers, and repository managers -- and why.
LW: Is this a self-imposed mandate Stevan? If so, are we all entitled to define our own mandates?
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">[log in to unmask]" type="cite">SH: Yes, self-imposed, Leo.
And, yes, we're all entitled to impose mandates on ourselves.
(Some, unfond of extended metaphors, might prefer to call it their "mission." Mine's been open access archivangelism 'lo these nigh on 20 years...)
