> I think Open Choice is a Trojan Horse, and that we should be
> very careful
> about our reaction to it, as it risks eliciting years more of
> delay for OA
> (under the guise of "preparing the way").

Is it my imagination, or has Stevan fundamentally misunderstood the
concept of a Trojan horse?  (According to his argument, Open Choice
isn't a Trojan horse for OA mandates, but rather a Trojan horse for the
delay of/diversion from OA mandates.)

But that's not the important point.  Here's the real question: if Open
Choice is a bad idea because it threatens to "delay or divert the
adoption of the OA self-archiving mandates," then really, is there any
valid option other than self-archiving mandates?  A couple of years ago,
Stevan's line of argument seemed to be "OA doesn't have to mean formal
publication in an OA forum, so please stop bothering me with your
economic objections."  Now it seems to have become "OA must not mean
formal publication in an OA forum, so please stop proposing economically
sustainable publication solutions."

In other words, has Stevan now decided that self-archiving is the One
True Way to OA, and all other possible approaches are dangerous
diversions from it?  (And if not, can he describe another legitimate
approach?)

----
Rick Anderson
Dir. of Resource Acquisition
University of Nevada, Reno Libraries
(775) 784-6500 x273
rickand@unr.edu