[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
Thanks for all that initial work and the CFP .
perhaps it should be a wiki page now, so that we can add/correct
personaland other data that you require?
Michel
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Mathieu O'Neil
<mathieu.oneil anu.edu.au>wrote:
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
Hi all
First, thanks to everyone who contributed so far to the
journal project,
you know who you are! Then, a belated happy 10th birthday to
the [ox]
project and its maintainer! I am happy to be actively
involved. For personal
reasons I will not be able to start "full-time editing" until
September /
October. In any case it is now the northern summer and I get
the impression
that not everyone is around. Plus, this fits in with stage we
are at which
is still to get the basics organised.
Specifically, we need to establish a webpage listing the
journal mission
statement, topics of interest, contributions sought and
submission criteria,
editor/scientific committee, maybe publisher. Ultimately this
will be used
to issue a first general call for papers (CFP). BTW, StefanMz
and StefanMn,
I would much prefer it if the address was http:cspp.ox.etc
rather than
http:csipp.ox.etc… "sipp" does not sound great to me and it
make me think of
sipping a cup.:-(
OK, enough whinging! The journal generic call for papers (CFP)
or front
page should ideally comprise the following elements (inspired
by another CFP
I just got):
1 <journal title / mission statement>
2 <topic and type of submissions sought>
3 <selection criteria>
4 <scientific committee: members and affiliation>
5 <publisher>
I address sticking points I identified for each of these in
turn and then
suggest a draft frontpage / CFP.
cheers,
Mathieu
1 <journal title / mission statement>
I added "multidisciplinary" – not wedded to it but thought it
might be
useful.
I took out "self-organized" in part because of what StefanMn said
("capitalist firms are self-organized also") though I think
what was
intended here is that these projects are less hierarchical
than traditional
corporations or bureaus, but also because it was redundant
with the
self-selection of tasks mentioned later in the selection:
brevity is best!
I also added "contradictions" of peer productions to flag that peer
production is not without its problems (see point below).
2 <topic and type of submissions sought>
This is important as it shows what we are interested in
specifically. I
incorporated George's suggestions and some of my own for this list.
<The following is a side-issue regarding a particular
subtopic - please
skip ahead if you want to focus on the CFP itself>
Regarding the issue of whether we should discuss the
possibility of FLOSS /
peer production being coopted within capitalism… Defined as
"junk"… A
perspective that I found interesting is in the book "The New
Spirit of
Capitalism" by French sociologists Boltanski and Chiappello.
In a nutshell
their argument is that capitalism needs to _justify_ its
essentially amoral
purpose (which they define as "the peaceful unlimited
accumulation of
capital" – whatever: insert any definition you would prefer),
so that it can
motivate its managers.
[See http://www.sociologiadip.unimib.it/mastersqs/rivi/boltan.pdf]
In 1968 in France there was a powerful challenge to capital
which took two
forms: a social critique of exploitation ("life under
capitalism is unequal"
as expressed by trade unions) and an artistic critique of
inauthenticity> ("life under capitalism is boring and repressed"
as expressed by New Left
avant-garde groups like the Situationnists). What has happened
according to
B&C since then is that capitalism has integrated the artistic
critique to
disarm the social critique: work (for some people) in the
informational> economy is less rigidly organised, workers have
more autonomy, personal
creativity is valued, there is a blurring between the personal
and the
professional (work as a creative vocation)… and meanwhile work
(for others)
has become less stable, less remunerative, more explotative.
A powerful idea they have is that capitalism needs critique to
survive and
reinvent itself: in informational capitalism successful individuals
establish connections with interesting others and move from
project to
project thanks to their agreeable personality, they have a
degree of
autonomy, similarly computer professionals work for Google in
unconventional> ways etc. In my view if the journal is going to
be "critical" it would be
useful for it to also be self-critical and self-reflexive. So
acknowledging> the role that free software and free labour can
play in capitalism is
important, at a simple level like I said before: "build Debian
/ Wikipedia
for free; buy a new computer"); but also in terms of
understanding how
injustice is now framed not in terms of exploitation but of
exclusion (from
networks, from power, from employment).
I'm not for a second saying that peer production does not have very
positive qualities (germ form for future society…). But I
think that
cooptation exists and should not be ignored. In fact
clarifying and
overcoming the tension between the cooptation of critique and peer
production's emancipatory potential is for me an important
task of the
journal!
[end side-topic]
<length of articles>
I suggested some lengths which seemed pretty standard?
<citation style>
APA, Harvard, Chicago??...
3 <selection criteria>
Most people (who expressed an opinion) seem to prefer an open
system. I'm
not against it but not having blind reviewing in favour of
open discussion
may turn some academics off ( StefanMn: remember how the
academic organiser
of the Manchester conference decided against pursuing with
[ox] for this
very reason?)
What I would suggest is that at this stage we just say "all
articles are
peer reviewed" and discuss further the way this would work
once we have more
people on board – for example we could have blind peer review for
new/unpublished submissions which are then discussed on the
list? StefanMn
may be right that openness will have a moderating effect.
4 <scientific committee: members and affiliation>
It's important to have a decent number – so far we have 7
people which is
too low in my view – so we need to build up the scientific
committee with
like-minded and credible people. What I am planning to do once
the text
below has been properly discussed and amended is to send it to
a few
academic researchers I think may be interested in joining in.
Regarding non-academics, if anyone has any ideas of people who
might be
suitable (have practical experience of peer production and can
write well)
that could be discussed as well. Maybe send me a private email?
Also:
George N Dafermos wrote:
About inviting *other people* to join in the list and in the
journal> > process if we think they would be interested: I
suppose this
ultimately hinges on Mathieu who as the maintainer of this project
(lead editor of the journal) is in a position to assess the
value of
recruiting others. Anyhow, I reckon we should be careful not
to end
up with a list/editorial group of a hundred people who, having
hardly anything in common, only aggravate the organisational costs
of cooperation, thus encumbering the progress of the
project. Also,
we should take account of the effect of such a recruitment on
theoretical coherence.
StefanMn said: "Valid points. May be we should set some
deadline then after
which
people are only invited by the existing group?"
I don't think we will have a hundred people… I'm all for
getting people who
are good and who we get on with etc. We will see how we go
over the next few
months with recruitment and then indeed once we have a
critical mass /
minimum number, we will stop this phase and from then on the
group could
suggest new people. This will need to be reviewed in the
northen fall.
<Next is the issue of affiliation or identification.>
University people are a priori unproblematic, they are
identified by their
institution.
The question is, how do we present non-university based
people? Do we put
the same term(s) for all of them – activist, practitioner – or
the name of
their specific projects?
For example, Michel is across both areas but is probably
better-known for
P2PF so it seems natural to put him as P2PF?
For StefanMn it would make sense to put [ox] but then below it
might say
[ox] is the publisher – does that make him the publisher? Does
this create a
confusion between distinct areas?
5 <publisher>
… Or do we not have a publisher?
However if CSPP is hosted by [ox] it makes sense to say what
[ox] is IMHO.
=-=-=-=-=-=
Anyway, here is the proposed CFP…
=-=-=-=-=-=
CRITICAL STUDIES IN PEER PRODUCTION
Critical Studies in Peer Production is dedicated to the
multidisciplinary> exploration of peer production, understood as
a mode of commons-based
production in which participation is voluntary and predicated
on the
self-selection of tasks. Notable examples are the
collaborative development
of Free Software projects and the Wikipedia online
encyclopedia. Through the
analysis of the forms and operations of peer producing
communities in
contemporary capitalist society, the journal aims to open up new
perspectives on the implications of peer production for social
change.> Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:
-history of peer production
-peer production and expertise
-political economy of peer production
-critical theory and peer production
-forms and functions of peer production
-peer production and exchange
-peer production and social movements
-peer production as ideology in capitalism
-governance in peer projects
-peer production of hardware
Critical Studies in Peer Production is seeking contributions
from people
active in peer production around the world, whether as
researchers or
practitioners. In addition to research articles, the journal
encourages the
submission of:
-reflections and critical essays on peer production
-interviews with peer production practitioners
-reviews of peer projects and products
Articles should be 6000 words, critical essays and interviews
between> 1[PHONE NUMBER REMOVED] words, and reviews 500-1000 words. The editor
is happy to discuss
other possibilities with potential contributors. All
contributions will be
peer reviewed. The journal follows the [insert citation style]
standard.>
Editor:
Mathieu O'Neil, University…
Scientific Committee:
Michel B, P2P / University?
George D, University…
Athina K, University…
StefanMn, ox?
StefanMz, ox?
Christian S, ?
Graham S, ?
CSPP is published by Oekonux. Oekonux is a non-profit
organization devoted
to the theoretical and practical advancement of the "Linux
economy", or peer
production. [It was founded by Stefan Merten in 1999 and is
based in
Germany.]
----- Original Message -----
From: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>
Date: Friday, July 24, 2009 7:25 am
Subject: [jox] Re: Topic style and/or issue style
To: journal oekonux.org
Cc: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>
Hi Mathieu and all!
I agree with what StefanMz replied. But to make this very
clear I'll
repeat this myself.
5 days ago Mathieu O'Neil wrote:
My second point is the relationship beween Oekonux and the
journal.> > > Obviously both these projects are interested in
the same things
(researching and extending peer production) and equally
obviously> > > Oekonux is in a sense the "patron" or "publisher"
of the
journal as
it will be hosting the journal website.
Yes. Though I admit that I would make me proud if the
journal is
hosted on an Oekonux domain I could also imagine that it has
its own
domain. In other words: The main point are technical
reasons. However,
they can be changed if needed.
But, I think we should be
careful about making them too integrated in terms of
content - or
rather I don't agree with how you formulate the direction
of this
integration. What I'm trying to say is that what in my view
would be
the best is a space where people in the Oekonux network can
communicate and exchange with other people including academic
researchers in an equal way.
Yes.
If however there is a perception that the journal and [ox]
are one
and the same (so that for example anything that is published
on an
[ox] website can automatically translate to the journal)
I don't think I ever even remotely suggested something like
this. If
something interesting on [ox] happens *and* someone comes up with
creating an article from it *then* it *could* be a candidate
for the
journal - no different from other candidates. I don't see any
automatism and would even think this would be
counterproductive for
everyone.
[ox] is a discussion platform and on the mailing lists
anything can
happen. This is fine. The journal needs far stronger quality
gates.> >
So in brief what I would say is that the peer-reviewed
"pearls" in
the journal could happily be featured on the [ox] website,
rather> > > than the other way around.
Exactly.
Grüße
Stefan
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal
****
[2 text/html]
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal
--
Working at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
http://www.shiftn.com/
[2 text/html]
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal