In reply to Richard Poynder.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how a 'movement' emerges and evolves. It starts with an idea that an increasing number of people feel strongly or very strongly about, and then a process of 'progressive insights', over time, shapes not only the evolution of the original idea, but also the evolution of issues around it and questions about it and the manner and scale of any abuse of the system (there always is abuse of any system), the possible responses to that, the way things are perceived (e.g. APC as 'pay-to-publish', or hybrid as 'double-dipping', which are at the very least rather simplistic), et cetera. Many of these issues amount to hypothetical questions, even thought experiments, and even if they could be resolved, their outcome would no-doubt throw up new questions and issues. The idea of expecting all these issues to be worked through before advocating any practical effort to effect change is one that is effectively supporting the forces of conserving the status quo.