"Subsidized," "free to use," and "community-funded" are all vast improvements over "cost-free," for describing open scholarly infrastructure. but I wonder if we need to get the word "equitable" in there? https://twitter.com/ivyleander/status/1536468841986895872

Besides, with infrastructure, I think there is a danger in tying its value too directly to "users." A fundamental characteristic of infrastructure is that there are parties who benefit from its existence but who may not be direct users of the system.

Free-to-use" or "free-at-point-of-use" raises the question- "use by whom?" In DataCite/Crossref, is the party resolving the DOI or using our APIs "the user?" (they don't pay). Or is the party registering the DOI "the user?" (they do pay). Same with “price-free.” Somebody pays.

In POSI, we use the term "stakeholder." Parties can have a stake in an infrastructure running but may not be direct users/customers of it.

I also worry about focusing on the "user" because that word starts quickly becoming conflated with "customer" and the unhelpful baggage that brings to the conversation.

This is partly why it is easy to underfund infrastructure- so many people don't realize the second-order benefits of the system.

Cynics would claim that the "stakeholders" are the people who pay. But again, in POSI, we explicitly reject that view. https://openscholarlyinfrastructure.org/faq/

There is also question-begging when we talk about infrastructure cost from the opposite perspective- with phrases like "community funded/subsidized." Who in the community is subsidizing it? Or which stakeholders?

So back to the question- how should we describe scholarly infrastructure that is affordable to all and where the costs associated with participating in and running it are distributed fairly? Maybe we need to use the word "equitable" in addition to "open?"

"POESI?"