[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?
Lincoln
________________________________
From: Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil anu.edu.au>
To: journal oekonux.org
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
again..
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
known):
[Feminism? Ecology?]
Biella
Debian, free software?
Johan
Hardware hacking, political economy?
Athina
IR?
Lincoln
Critical theory?*
Mayo
Organisation?
Simon
File sharing, piracy?
Felix
Art?
Maurizio
Free software?
Ed
Economics of peer production?
Stefans
Political economy?
Mathieu
Organisation, expertise?
So, what do those people think? I can't think of any other way
to imbue energy
and appeal to the project.
cheers,
Mathieu
* 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
about
----- Original Message -----
From: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>
Date: Monday, February 14, 2011 10:04 pm
Subject: [jox] Re: Blanking sheet
To: journal oekonux.org
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
http://cspp.oekonux.org/Members/smerten/requirements/use-cases
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
debate.
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..
Grüße
Stefan
****
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]anu.edu.au
web: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php
[2 text/html]
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal
[2 text/html]
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal