Message 00075 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00000 Message: 52/176 L16 [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]

[jox] Re: Scientific committee

Hi Mathieu and all!

I see we are coming closer to an agrement. Great :-) !

6 days ago Mathieu O'Neil wrote:
I hope you don't mind that I'm continuing on this topic. But I think
it is good to make these things clear in the beginning. I also think
that it is useful to discuss possible dangers. I hope in 
practice this
will turn out to be superfluous but it's better to set 
guidelines when
not already in conflict about something.

No, I agree 100% that it is important to discuss these issues as thoroughly as possible now, as once they have been agreed on they tend to be viewed as written in blood (for pirates) or set in stone (for religious folk)! ;-)

Good :-) .

The key question, however, is: Who makes go/no-go decisions? You as
the lead editor? A team? If so who is a team member? I'm open 
for any
solution but would appreciate we could clarify this up front.

Good questions. I don't know. Normally in a journal there is an editor who is ultimately responsible. Ideally we would have some kind of consensus-seeking mechanism for cases where there is disagreement over an issue (list debate?) and maybe if discussion does not work after a reasonable delay the editor would decide?  

I think this resembles the maintainer concept seen so often in peer
production pretty well. Since all are volunteers it balances the power
of the team nicely with the power of the maintainer / editor. It also
clarifies the roles of all participants making clear who is
responsible for what. I could go with this very well.

So, potentially, you might argue that new people could hijack the
project and drag it where it should not go. There are two ways in
which this is not such a big risk in my view.

That's my (and George's and may be even Graham's?) concern more or
less, yes.

First, I will naturally approach people who I think will be a 
good fit. 

Sure. Though I generally trust you we could consider whether
additional transparency could add to this feeling.

I'm happy to post a draft of the letter I would send out

That would be great. It could also be used as a blueprint for others
to invite.

but as was said before there is a confidentiality / privacy issue about mentioning people openly and publicly before they have been contacted. 

I agree absolutely.

Well, when I think in more theoretical terms about this problem then
I'd say that we need to make sure that alienated reasons to
participate are kept out as good as possible. And "alienated" I spell
out as reasons different from "creating the best possible journal
about 'Critical Studies in Peer Production'".

Ah, but what is "best"? 

I think this question can be answered only in practice. We as a team
with you as the maintainer certainly have the foundation to create a
fruitful practice :-) .



Thread: joxT00000 Message: 52/176 L16 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00075 [Homepage] [Navigation]