Message 00491 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00448 Message: 33/44 L11 [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]
Dear all

To reiterate, there is no question of delaying the release, just securing some names of associate editors who would be responsible for a special issue or theme. I have recently taken part in the launch of another journal project and they have the main themes of their next six issues lined up, because there are lots of editors who are each responsible for putting together conference proceedings, or a collection of papers. 
This is what I think we need for CSPP, and that is why I sent out the call to some people on the SC who I thought might be interested.


----- Original Message -----
From: Maurizio Teli <maurizio>
Date: Thursday, April 14, 2011 5:30 pm
Subject: Re: [jox] Strategy / Content
To: journal
Cc: Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil>

Dear All,

I agree with Athina perspective: launch the journal as soon as 
we can. 
Moreover, I will be happy to contribute eliciting papers for a special
issue in the next future. 

Does it make sense to imagine a potential schedule of future 
issues (the
next two years)?



Il giorno mar, 12/04/2011 alle 22.59 +0100, Athina Karatzogianni ha
[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi Mathieu

On your previous email, I was thinking about it, but had no 
time to reply at
that point.

I suggest we go ahead with what we have at the moment and 
launch the journal
as soon as we can. Then  with more people aware, and we 
should link it up
with all our networks, there will be more collaboration and 
suggestions for
next steps and issues to come.

I dont think there is a point stalling to enrich it now. Lets 
see what
people think after we launch and link it up  to think 
about the future with
something solid in our hands to talk about, rather that 
stopping at this
junction and procrastinate more than it is really necessary or 


On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Mathieu ONeil 
[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi Lincoln

Thanks for your comment, and sorry for my late reply. I was 
in two minds
about this as on the one hand any contributions is very 
welcome but on the
other I was sort of hoping that homegrown talent would be 
there for the
project... I'm also wondering about a specific direction / 
theme we could
define with this person? So def. something to be explored 
more, please go
ahead and let us know what emerges.


----- Original Message -----
From: lincoln dahlberg <l.j.dahlberg>
Date: Sunday, April 10, 2011 7:14 pm
Subject: Re: [jox] Strategy / Content
To: journal

[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 
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
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
in the
software business it is always a good idea to look 
first at the
"business" side of things. The result of my considerations
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]

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]


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]

Thread: joxT00448 Message: 33/44 L11 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00491 [Homepage] [Navigation]