From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 23:40:28 -0500

I'm afraid I have to view this debate differently. While the CC BY
definition may be a laudable goal for some sectors of publishing and
for some subset of scholars, I do not think it works as an ideal end
point for all sectors and for all scholars. We talked about what later
came to be dubbed "open access" in the CIC way back in the early
1990s, so I don't see why the BOAI group should be ceded any authority
as controlling the definition of OA or should be given any deference
just because it invented the term (if it did). It was a much smaller
group than the CIC and was focused much more narrowly on one type of
publishing (STM journals). It can be credited with helping start a
real movement, but I would question whether its definition of OA
should somehow be regarded as gospel, worthy of worship beyond all
competing "strategic visions," to use Jean-Claude's terminology.

Sandy Thatcher


> From: "Jean-Claude Guédon" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 10:48:24 -0400
>
> It seems to me that, in definitional discussions, we should clearly
> distinguish between ultimate objectives and intermediate steps. The
> definitions crafted back in 2001-3 were certainly imperfect, if only
> because much had yet to be understood and discovered at that time.
> Yet, they did include essential items that we should not abandon. And
> shifting ground in mid-course does not appear altogether wise to me.
> Yet, they defined a clear objective, a vision, a dream perhaps. And,
> as such, they are just fine. But an objective, a vision, or a dream,
> is not a reality.
>
> At the same time, I understand Stevan's points very well and, like
> him, get concerned when I see people all tangled up in definitions
> rather than pushing for open access, step by step.
>
> As a result, I would suggest keeping the original definitions, but
> treat them as if they were somewhat analogous to the North that a
> compass points to: we want to move in some direction related to the
> North, but we know that the North given by the compass is not entirely
> accurate, and we know that it is an ultimate end point that cannot be
> reached without many detours, if only because we meet obstacles. In
> short, we need to have some general, fixed reference, and then we
> progress as best we can in the direction we want.
>
> In short, we should treat the original definitions as a strategic
> vision, but not let the definitions block our tactical steps. From a
> strategic perspective, a tactical move will appear imperfect and
> incomplete. However, this is not a very useful way to judge the
> tactical step. Instead, the strategist should aim the following kind
> of judgement: is a particular tactical step susceptible of impeding
> further steps in the (more or less) right direction? If it is, then,
> it is time to stop, reconsider, and modify. If not, let us accept it,
> even if it appears far from perfection.
>
> And I would push the argument just a little further by reminding
> Stevan (and perhaps some others) that the idea of a perfect tactical
> schedule is as elusive as the perfect objective. Having the vision for
> perfect tactics may usefully inform decision-making in concrete
> situations, but it should not be mistaken for absolute necessity and
> it cannot justify rigid recommendations. The "terrain" offered by
> various disciplines, countries and institutions is much too varied to
> permit a single approach to every situation.
>
> In short, confusing strategic visions with tactical steps is a
> complicated way of saying that perfection can be the enemy of the
> good.
> --
>
> Jean-Claude Guédon
> Professeur titulaire
> Littérature comparée
> Université de Montréal