Message 00184 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00184 Message: 1/1 L0 [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]

Fwd: [jox] Re: Consensus? 01 -

Hi Stefan, all

First, apologies for the email jumble - the university running this account recently updated their email web server and I guess there are still a few kinks to work out. I will notify them. I'm forwarding this inline instead of replying, hopefully it will be better.

StefanMn: thanks for your messages, interesting ideas.

-re. ratings

Adding categories such as (for ex.) controversiality / academic value / English language / etc would be an elegant solution. As for people unhappy with a poor rating in category x they do have the option of not publishing with us. For me this is resolved, unless someone strongly objects.

-re. SC membership

In my view it is fine to include collective flows such as mailing list posts alongside other contributions. In your case (for ex.) a link to articles on the Oekonux site, mailing list posts, etc would show that you have thought a lot as well as written a lot about peer production, capitalism, etc. I can't see how anyone claiming to speak with expertise about a subject dealt with in the journal would be unable to offer anything at all as corroboration - be it a collective blog where they have actively posted.

Re the quantity of such contributions there should be a "substantial" number I guess. As to what that means exactly: not sure. More than two, probably?...

Re interviewing people for the SC our geographic dispersion also argues in favour of the online archive as that provides an easy reference for everyone. It's not that hard to set up a site or page or blog page just saying what you have done, where you have been active...

Re the optional criteria (affiliation) it only applies to academics I guess.

-re. documenting proposals

As far as I am concerned this list is the archive, I don't see the point of starting a new page somewhere, once decisions have been agreed on we can write them on the site.



-------- Original Message --------
From: Stefan Merten <smerten>
Date: 2 Dec 2009 15:03:34
Subject: [jox] Re: Consensus? 01 -
To: journal
Cc: Stefan Merten <smerten>

Hi Mathieu!

I'll do the work to reformat this mail once for a reply.

5 days ago Mathieu O'Neil wrote:
> If for whatever reason these conditions cannot be met, then we
> should in my view be coherent and reevaluate whether SC membership
> is appropriate.

First I'd think if you make binding decisions / call for consensus
then you should document them on the website somewhere. At best you
add a link to the mail where the decision is made / consensus is

> a-most current institutional affiliation (if relevant),
> b-webpage / website "listing their writings and thoughts about the subject in which they are claiming expert status", and
> c-research interests (to be added to their site page or popup and to help decide who gets to review what).

Second you are listing three points of which one seems to be optional
("if relevant"). If it is optional it's not a criterion obviously.

It would be useful if you could make clear what the real criterion is
you are proposing.

Third if the criteria you are thinking of is b), then it is a rather
loose criterion. What does it mean? Can I put links to any two of my
texts to a website and that's it? Can everyone do this?

Fourth I think we should look for a consensus which opens the door for
non-academics - in case criterion b) will be hardened that is. For
this aspect I think further dicsussion is needed. I'll write a
separate post with an idea on this.




Thread: joxT00184 Message: 1/1 L0 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00184 [Homepage] [Navigation]