Message 00420 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00402 Message: 5/39 L4 [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] 2010 Christmas Memo

hi mathieu and cspp peoples,

glad the journal is almost ready!

last month i presented in amsterdam at the economies of the commons 2.
it was partly organised by geert's INC, but had other partners as
well. some of the material covered is very relevant for cspp and it
might be worth approaching some of the organisers (perhaps eric
kluitenberg at de balie or morgan currie from inc) to see if they are
interested in doing one of those conference reports.


Nate Tkacz

School of Culture and Communication
University of Melbourne


Research Page:

Current project:

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil> wrote:
[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
                                       <!--             page { margin: 2cm }           P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }             A:link { so-language: zxx }     -->       CSPP – 2010 CHRISTMAS MEMO
 Hi all
 After a period of quiet it is time for an update, as always please comment on any issue.
 Thanks to StefanMn's work, the website is almost finished, go and have a look if you have not done so already []. The layout is fairly minimal and functional, it could be spruiced up later down the track but we just wanted to get the basics right (for those who have an account, login will enable you to see hidden categories which will be added as we incorporate content).
 Regarding our formal / official launch and call for papers. I think a good compromise between having a traditional “issue” release on one hand and dribbling out an article here and there at a time on the other, would be to have at least two items for each of our major categories (research, debate, reviews) when we launch. Then we could add additional pairs of articles, debate, reviews as we go along.
 Following are some suggestions.
 1_Research category (the only one that is peer reviewed)
 1_1 Process
 FWIW, here is an ultra-quick summary of the review process which I'm copying from a message I posted yesterday to our tech-list, I guess a version of this needs to appear at the beginning of
 [ StefanMn: we should probably explain on the cspp site how to join the list as well as how to contact the editor ; I know there is a contact form at the top of the page but it would be more user-friendly to be able to send email or access the contact form from inside the submission and peer review pages – we can discuss this on the tech list]
  a-proposal for paper proposed to email list either directly by author or through editor
b-list gives feedback
c-full paper formally submitted to editor or posted directly to restricted part of site (if the author has access rights)
d-editor posts paper to site if necessary, approaches three reviewers
e-reviewers hand in reports
f-editor provides this feedback to author
g-author (accepts or rejects feedback and) re-submits full paper
h-reviewers rate this re-submission
i-author decides whether he/she is happy to publish with these ratings
j-article is published/not published
 k-reviewer reports are published/not published (pending author/reviewers agreement)
l-if published: audience can comment; author can respond in comments

[still undecided -> we need a way to present the rating system?]
[still undecided -> we also have to determine if we publish only as a webpage and/or as pdf?]
 1_2 Submissions
 -StefanMn and StefanMz's submission is ongoing, but I have not heard from the authors as to how they wish to approach the three reviewer's recommendations.
-Graham Seaman was interested in submitting something but has not done so yet.
 -A researcher called Jonas Andersson just finished his Ph. D on Swedish file sharing which sounded very interesting, so I contacted him and he has agreed to adapt one of his chapters for the journal. I will be the editor for this one. Jonas has been subscribed to this list (bienvenue!).
  Jonas: Please make use of this list's distributed expertise (we have a talented and friendly board and scientific committee, check out to obtain feedback on your work.
 -To develop this project initially we will have to “put our money where our mouths are” and invest our “intellectual capital”. A few months ago I mentioned I was intending to submit to cspp my submission to the (non-peer reviewed) CPOV reader. Well it turns out the CPOV editors thought my submission was not suitable (too “general” or perhaps too critical? No matter, CPOV people do not need to respond). In any case I am rewriting something completely different on authority for that Reader. I still have my original submission, “The sociology of critique in Wikipedia” and I still want to submit it to this journal. So, that is what I'm doing here. The only problem is this paper is in the CPOV style (full footnotes + full bibliography) not our chosen Harvard and I dont have time to fix it right now so I'm using my editor *magick dust* to say that this will be fixed later. The paper is available for download on my Australian academic homepage:
 This should only be up till the end of December as a completely different text will have to replace it then.
 Athina was OK to drive this paper forward as associate editor, if she is still OK, great (it will be a nice break from Wikileaks?)
  Athina: please let me know, if OK I will email you privately some suggestions for reviewers and you can take it from there.
 -Anyone else who feels like contributing relevant and original material please contact me or post a proposal to the list,
 2) Debate
 - The debate about ANT/Foucault, Hegelianism, and sociology between Johan Soderberg, Nate Tkacz and me has been ready for months (sorry for the delay Nate!). It is pretty much ready to go.
 - I read some interesting posts on the P2P research list by Martin Pedersen who was critical of some aspects of immaterial peer production. Michel Bauwens responded quite strongly so I thought that could be the basis for a good debate. Martin agreed to do this, Michel will provide a basis for response, others could jump in to and after a private email discussion we agreed that this exchange could later be republished on the PP foundation weblog. Martin has been subscribed to the list, welcome aboard also!
  Martin and Michel: Debate articles are not peer reviewed so it is up to you whether you would like to use the list to get feedback or not.
 3) Reports
 - The Amsterdam CPOV report by Nate and Johana Nyesito has been ready for months too; a few tweaks and it will be finalised (sorry Nate and Johanna!)
 - I contacted one of the organiser of the Berlin Free culture conference in November (Leonhard Dobusch) and he has agreed to do a report also.
 I am hoping all these strands can be finalised over the next few weeks (hmm) so as to launch formally in late January.
 Any other suggestions welcome,
 ps. Like many of you I suppose I have been following the efforts to shut down Wikileaks and the response of the (mainly Western) “free Internet”. When added to the ever-spreading Facebook identity-authentication tentacles, these control efforts raise some serious concerns about the direction of the network...
 I agree with the conclusion of which is also reframed by
 Of course, apart from agreeing in principle that more attention needs to be paid to safeguarding the physical infrastructure, I dont have any precise or concrete ideas as to what should be done, and I can only appeal to others' suggestions or refer to the ongoing discussion on “alternative email infrastructure” on the P2P foundation list...

[2 text/html]


Thread: joxT00402 Message: 5/39 L4 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00420 [Homepage] [Navigation]