Message 00485 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00448 Message: 29/44 L7 [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] Strategy / Content

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi Mathieu,

Invitations to personal contacts that we know are completing specific relevant 
work might work well. 

For example, Joss Hands has recently published @ is for activism and is active 
in some public discussions, like everyone he is rather busy with 

issues of restructuring etc, but might be able to pull something together with 
respect to his recent thinking.  I can directly ask him, and if he can't, to 
invite him
to pass on the invitation, is there an informal process for doing so? 


From: Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil>
To: journal
Sent: Sun, 10 April, 2011 10:14:01 AM
Subject: [jox] Strategy / Content

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi all

It has been such a long hiatus in communication that it feels weird to speak up 

I was hoping to announce that the revised version of my paper on WP and critique 
was finished, but it still needs a bit of work. It has come a long way though, 
thanks  again to the reviewers.

Will post the reviews along with the finished revision.

The other research paper (on the Swedish file sharing) is also being reworked, 
hopefully finished soon?

Once all that is done we will be ready to (finally aargh) formally announce our 
existence to the world and issue our Call For Papers based on our initial 
offering which consists of:

-two research papers (one by the editor)
-two conference reports
-three debate papers (one by the editor)

Quality-wise it will be good but in terms of numbers it is pretty thin gruel. 

Now, CSPP is a distinctive publication because of two things:
-its political angle (peer production blah blah SOCIAL CHANGE)
-its publication and review process (more on that in another email)

So for me at the end of the day I don't mind spending x hours working on a paper 
for this journal even though I know at this point it is not exactly a top-notch 
impact factor investment and even though it might look weird for the editor to 
be authoring so much content - its the right thing to do, I believe in it etc

But - its not sustainable for me to do this alone. 

More importantly, we need more "juice" in our initial CFP.

So what I was thinking is: bouncing off on the suggestion made a few months ago 
- on the CFP, we need a big old bunch of (additional / associate) editors who 
have good cred on their topic and are willing to sherpa a couple papers, plus 
maybe write one (or at least an intro) themselves for a special issue. By 
"sherpa" I do not simply mean waiting for the papers to trickle in but rather 
actively seeking out and approaching potential authors (precisely what I did for 
the Swedish file sharing paper).

Based on previous interactions and known interests here is a tentative list of 
possible candidates (any other persons interested and competent please let it be 

[Feminism? Ecology?]

Debian, free software?

Hardware hacking, political economy?


Critical theory?*


File sharing, piracy?


Free software?

Economics of peer production?

Political economy?

  Organisation, expertise?

So, what do those people think? I can't think of any other way to imbue energy 
and appeal to the project.



* There is a lot of interest in critical theory in Internet studies these days. 
Christian Fuchs just published a book on the topic (have not read it yet) and 
Jeremy Hunsinger (a US academic, active in AOIR) released a CFP for sub-editors 
a month ago on "CT and the Internet" for a long-term online publication. I 
contacted him to tell him about CSPP and ask whether a joint publication might 
be in order ("CT and PP"), and he responded that he did not think 
cross-publication was a good idea. I still think duplicating the effort seems 
silly and do not despair of bringing him around eventually... something to think 

----- Original Message -----
From: Stefan Merten <smerten>
Date: Monday, February 14, 2011 10:04 pm
Subject: [jox] Re: Blanking sheet
To: journal

Hi all!

I'm sorry that I need to come back to this, but I don't accept that
I'm accused of things which exist only in the heads of others.

I guess it is this snippet Mathieu relates to...

2 weeks (15 days) ago Mathieu ONeil wrote:
However _right now_ I and most others are focused on getting the
journal out. What I should have said is: "We need a 'time out' for
the process stuff. Let's come back to it once we have accomplished
the immediate goal."

...when he says (on [jox-tech]):

6 days ago Mathieu ONeil wrote:
What I strongly
objected to was dealing with this through endless debate 
_right now_
at the expense of content production:

That whole point got my attention two weeks ago when Mathieu said
similar things but I thought it would be better not to respond.
However, I'm not ready to accept pointless accusations.

So to make this finally clear: It was *not me* who wanted an endless
debate. I just needed a basis for starting an implementation. I also
wrote this (here on this list):

14 months (420 days) ago Stefan Merten wrote:
After getting somewhat confused I decided to write down a few things
and while writing them down structure them. From my experience 
in the
software business it is always a good idea to look first at the
"business" side of things. The result of my considerations is 
a couple
of use cases I identified. Please see

At the moment the use cases reflect some more or less 
arbitrary state
in the recent discussion and they are probably not complete.

Please do not misunderstand this page as making a decision. 
It's just
an attempt to write down the complexity somewhere so I can transform
it to technology later. Regardless of what the result of this
discussion will be it will be somewhat complex so something 
like this
is needed in any case.
Please have a look. Comments are welcome. (I feel Mathieu 
wants to
keep things on this mailing lists instead of the Plone site so
comments are better send here.)

I can't see how this can be understood as an invitation for endless

In fact after a year when Mathieu for a short moment stopped ignoring
this it was in fact *he* who needed to debate things. It would also
have been possible to simply accept it as is and improve it later.

I really hope this is the last I need to say about this very
unpleasant topic..



Dr Mathieu O'Neil
Adjunct Research Fellow
Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute
College of Arts and Social Science
The Australian National University
email: mathieu.oneil[at]

[2 text/html]

[2 text/html]

Thread: joxT00448 Message: 29/44 L7 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00485 [Homepage] [Navigation]