Message 00053 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00000 Message: 26/176 L13 [In date index] [In thread index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [jox] Draft CFP

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Well, if people feel a wiki is necessary at this stage, why not, but at the same time this list has been working OK until now?... You can email me the information and I can compile it if you like. 

----- Original Message -----
From: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004>
Date: Sunday, July 26, 2009 7:28 pm
Subject: Re: [jox] Draft CFP
To: journal

[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?


On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Mathieu O'Neil 
[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.


1 <journal title / mission statement>

I added "multidisciplinary" – not wedded to it but thought it 
might be

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.

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

[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?


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
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

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 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] 
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

----- Original Message -----
From: Stefan Merten <smerten>
Date: Friday, July 24, 2009 7:25 am
Subject: [jox] Re: Topic style and/or issue style
To: journal
Cc: Stefan Merten <smerten>

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.


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

[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.





[2 text/html]

Working at - -

Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:  - -

Monitor updates at

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,

[2 text/html]

Dr Mathieu O'Neil
Adjunct Research Fellow
Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute
College of Arts and Social Science
The Australian National University

E-mail: mathieu.oneil
Tel.: (61 02) 61 25 38 00
Mail: Coombs Building, 9
Canberra, ACT 0200 - AUSTRALIA

[2 text/html]

Thread: joxT00000 Message: 26/176 L13 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00053 [Homepage] [Navigation]