Message 00644 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00634 Message: 6/39 L5 [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] Cancellations of list subscriptions by team members


I think it depends. I could see someone reasonably wanting to
unsubscribe for a period of time and still help out, for instance
reviewing. I know with Social Text often have on the table whether to
let go of folks that don't go to the meetings but they tend to review
and also show up for big events and help when asked so we feel like it
is good to have folks with different levels of commitment.

But I think folks should let the journal know and explain why they might
need to take a break from the email list.


On 06/30/2011 05:18 AM, Mathieu ONeil wrote:
[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi all

A few weeks ago Graham Seaman cancelled his subscription to this list. Today Andreas Wittel did the same. The question is, can someone be meaningfully said to be part of the governance board (G) or scientific committee (A) if they choose to not participate in our discussion and decision forum? Personally I don't think so. So, unless someone objects, I am proposing that their names be removed. They can always come back later if they want.



On 06/30/11, Mathieu ONeil  <mathieu.oneil> wrote:
[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
(re-reposting for Alessandro who is still bouncing off)

Ah, but our SC members are unusual in that they are all committed to  
  helping the project and very diligent in delivering reviews - most   
of those for issue 1 came back in a few weeks. if you explain the   
situation people understand and do their best to meet deadlines -   
though I guess you will be getting outside reviewers too

you're right, but the lenght of the review process also depends on how  
many reviewers we need. let's say we have 4 good papers = 8 or 12  
reviewers, all experts on more or less the same subject... this was  
worrying us even before you said you wanted it for december :)

again, I am certainly willing to try and make it for december, and i'm  
sure johan as well will work hard to match the deadline. i dont think  
it's impossible.

but as a special issue you have special problems here: what if one  
author is late? what if one reviewer is late? what if, which is very  
likely, one paper needs major revisions? that would stop the whole  
issue and not only one paper.

if i were you, mathieu, I would have a Plan B: 2/3 papers and 2/3  
short articles for the debate section ready for december. if we make  
it for december with our issue, you move them to june and the next  
special issue to next december. of course you can also decide to  
publish the december special issue say in january o february 2012, if  
something happens.

anyhow i guess these are normal problems when you start a new journal...

On 06/30/11, Alessandro Delfanti  <delfanti> wrote:
mathieu, you're very optimistic :)

first of all, july 31 to early october means slightly more than one month - i dont think people will work in august, but i'm italian, i got a bias here :)
so i would give them one more month

second, in my experience it is almost impossible to get the referees' reports in one month. usually it takes 2 to 6 months to: find the reviewer. convince her/him. ask for another person. convince her/him... ask her/him for the review. remind. remind again. change the deadline. write her/him again. switch to another reviewer... and so on and so forth :)

i mean, we MIGHT make it for december, and we can certainly try, but i wouldn't bet on having everything in time...


[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi all

If Maurizio and Vincenzo's issue will be ready in May for a June  2012 release that raises the question of the content of the next  issue, December 2011.

@Alessandro: You recently wrote to me that your and Johan's issue on  biohacking could not be made ready for a December release. I was  meaning to get back to you on that point so I'll take this  oppportunity.

Your deadline for submission is July 31.
Say two months to complete papers: Early October.
One month for review: early November.
One month for revision and signaling: Early December. It's tight, but doable.

Alternatively would be December 2012... Or negotiate with Maurizio  and Vincenzo for the June 2012 spot. Then we have the problem of no  content for the next issue. IMHO, for the good of the project, it  would be best to aim for December... What do you and Johan say?


ps. For the "debate" section my view is the issue of "which licence  best spreads the commons / free software" has the potential to be  all at once useful and vigorous, if participants can lose the aggro.
pps. Have not read the below call in detail but I note that they  want to invite "anti-hacker" D. Golumbia which is a gutsy move but  isn't this also a question of definition (ie, different conceptions  of what is a hacker - criminal or not etc) as discussed extensively  on the AOIR list and here? Just my 2 cents.

On 06/29/11, Maurizio Teli  <maurizio> wrote:
Dear All,

I send you teh text Vincenzo and myself have prepared for the special
issue on Free Software.

Two main points:

- we have thought of an invitation based issue, with papers co-authored
by social scientists and computer scientists; if someone among you wants
to participate or suggest some potential contributor, we will be happy
to include them;

- we were thinking about inviting David Golumbia to the debate section
of this special issue before the AIR-L debate; we are once more
convinced of how a piece by him can be useful but we would like to have
your opinion before inviting him.

Below you find the short introduction that we will share with the
invited contributors (so we have to check their availability too) and a
list of names of contributors both for the research papers and the
debate papers. Feel free to make any suggestion. We can reasonably
expect the issue to be ready in May 2012.




The Critical Power of Free Software: from Intellectual Property to

From the perspective of social organization, Free Software can  be
conceived as a form of critique by adaptability and modifiability, as
pointed out by anthropologist Christopher Kelty, standing outside
institutionalized forms of power and providing working alternatives as
critical tools. Starting from such kind of understanding, Free Software
has been interpreted as a form of critique toward consolidated
capitalistic tropes and contemporary forms, like the extension of
Intellectual Property toward any kind of common pool resources or the
forms of organization of labour and coordination of distributed
Nevertheless, the increasing adoption of Free Software by multi-national
corporations is now forecasting the domestication of free software
practices by contemporary global capitalism and hierarchical forms of
social organization. It happens in particular in the form of the Open
Source dialect, through the extensive overlapping of the open source
discourse with the capitalistic discourses, such as the one on
legitimate hybrid business models, between open source and proprietary
Such perspective requires that the critical power of Free Software is
brought under scrutiny, moving from the undermining of the discourses of
Intellectual Property, organization of work or hierarchy, to the
understanding of the epistemological implications for computer science
and software engineering. From this point of view, arguments like the
one by David Golumbia, who sees the epistemology of computing as the
locus of production and reproduction of long standing inequalities in
power relationship, are suggesting new areas of enquiry. Is Free
Software able to critique the epistemological basis of computing? Is it
able to connect its critique of discourses of Intellectual Property and
organizational forms to the critique of the premises of software
development as a professional and research practice?
Those are the questions this special issue is trying to answer. It is
trying to do that through papers co-authored by social scientists and
computer scientists, who will try to envision the potential for Free
Software of being a form of interdisciplinary, cultural and material,

Invited contributors:

Maurizio Teli, Ahref Foundation & Vincenzo D'Andrea, University of
Trento (eds.)

David Hakken, Indiana University & a CS colleague to be announced
 (DH accepted the invitation)

Christian Fuchs, Uppsala University (to be contacted and asked to
contact a CS)

Debate invitations (to be invited):

Fabio Casati, University of Trento

Judith Simon, Institut Jean Nicod, Ecole Normale Superiore, Paris

Pelle Ehn, Malmö University

Christopher Kelty, Duke University

David Golumbia, University of Virginia


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]

Alessandro Delfanti
ICS, Innovations in the Communication of Science
Sissa, Trieste, Italy

  SISSA Webmail
  Powered by Horde


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]

Gabriella Coleman, Assistant Professor
NYU, Department of Media, Culture, & Communication
On Leave 2010-2011, The Institute for Advanced Study

Thread: joxT00634 Message: 6/39 L5 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00644 [Homepage] [Navigation]