Re: The Mandate of Open Access Institutional Repository Managers

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:22:52 -0400

On 2010-07-30, at 4:54 PM, leo waaijers wrote:

      But shouldn't you accept then that different repository managers may
      have various 'mandates'? You seem so rigid in this.


Dear Leo,

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?

Best wishes,

Stevan


      Stevan Harnad wrote:

On 2010-07-30, at 4:18 PM, leo waaijers wrote:

  

Stevan Harnad wrote:
    

And my mandate, Charles (if you will permit me!) is to continue describing, as c
learly and as concretely as I can, what it is that I take to be the mandate of r
epositories, repository managers, and repository managers -- and why.
      

Is this a self-imposed mandate Stevan? If so, are we all entitled to define our
own mandates?
    

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." Mi
ne's been open access archivangelism 'lo these nigh on 20 years...)


  
Received on Fri Jul 30 2010 - 22:27:12 BST