Dear Mathieu,
regarding your request for a 4,000 word contribution, I could write an update to my basic CTheory essay, reflecting on some of the debates and critiques it generated?
Michel
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil anu.edu.au> wrote:
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
Journal report - 19 AUGUST 2011
Hi everyone, a number of issues for the journal project.
If you want to address a specific issue it might be best to start a new thread to avoid confusion - thanks.
********************************************
NEW MEMBER
Johan suggested that we invite Jakob Rigi of the Central European University in Budapest to join our SC, as he expressed a strong interest in our journal and related work. I have subscribed Jakob to this list.
@Jakob: welcome aboard, please feel free to join in debates and get involved as you see fit!
********************************************
MISC. ADMIN ISSUES
- ISSN number
- Inclusion in Google Scholar
It was suggested to me a couple of months ago that it would be useful to obtain these things. If anyone knows how to do this quickly, or feels like doing this, could you please let me know - thanks.
********************************************
SECOND ISSUE ON "PEER PRODUCTION IN GENERAL"
RELEASE: DECEMBER 2011
-Research papers section
3 papers submitted through the contact form on the website are at various stage of being completed and reviewed.
-Reports/Reviews section
In the first issue we had two conference reports. This time I think it would be good to have some book reviews. I could try to do one or two. If anyone has any suggestions that would be good.
In particular if anyone has read Christian Fuch's latest book "Foundations of Critical Media and Information Studies"? I have not read it but I think it would be highly relevant to review it for CSPP.
Finally if someone is interested in being "Book review editor" that could a good way to develop this - any takers?
We can start a new thread about this.
-Debate section
Nothing yet - see below for a suggestion.
********************************************
SPECIAL ISSUE ON "BIOHACKING"
RELEASE: JUNE 2012
From what I have heard from Johan and Alessandro they have had a ton of submissions - well done.
@Johan and Alessandro: you can update the list periodically on how you are going, if you like.
********************************************
SPECIAL ISSUE ON "ORGANISATION / CLASS"
NO RELEASE DATE YET
Mayo and I have been working on a CFP. I have been slack about this and will focus on it now so we can release it soon.
********************************************
SPECIAL ISSUE ON "FLOSS"
NO RELEASE DATE YET
Still waiting to hear from Maurizio and Vincenzo on how they want to address the criticism by StefanMn that they are not properly addressing the issue. So far StefanMz has expressed support for StefanMn. This is an edited version of what I wrote on the issue on july 21:
"I understand what you say about peer production being a new phenomenon, but I don't see how it can be separated from the 95% rest of the world economy which is capitalistic. PP is both dependent on and enmeshed within this wider order. For me the interesting thing scientifically is precisely to work out the relationship between these two orders and - possibly from a more activist perspective - to work out how to extend the commons and peer production (...) if you want to get your point across effectively IMHO it would be best to submit a paper to the journal for our upcoming issue on peer production theory - that way you can explain what new tools and concepts are needed etc. A whole issue on Oekonux can be envisaged for later, we don't have the writing and editorial resources right now. The peer production theory issue can be released next December. Is an article possible?"
Matthew Allen then agreed with this (sort of) see:
http://www.oekonux.org/journal/list/archive/msg00670.html
********************************************
SUGGESTION 1: DEBATE ON FLOSS/PEER PRODUCTION
Perhaps a productive way to move this issue forward would be to articulate the different positions in a formal "Debate" section which would appear in the next issue, in December. There could be a statement by StefanMn and/or StefanMz on why he/they think peer production transcends current analytical categories and Maurizio and/or someone else could write a response.
This would have several advantages:
- There would be a Debate section in the next issue ;-)
- There would be a text by people in Oekonux in the journal
- There would be a clarification of how the FLOSS/peer production issue can be approached
********************************************
SUGGESTION 2: INVITED COMMENTS
Our first issue had two research papers (including one by the editor...), and the next "general/theory" one will have three. This is not a very high number. Then with the upcoming special issues we should have more.
I thought a way around this would be to have a couple of "invited comments" whereby we ask people who are knowledgeable about peer production to articulate their understanding of it. These invited comments would not be peer reviewed and would be around 4,000 words (?). They could be a remixed version of a text published elsewhere. I got the idea from the Journal of Science Communication which Alessandro edits which also has invited comments.
For the general issue on peer production of CSPP here are some people who I thought could be approached. Some are already involved in the journal:
-Christian Siefkes
Christian did an interesting piece on "commonism" in the recently published okcon conference proceedings, which he has agreed to adapt for the next issue of CSPP.
-Michel Bauwens
-Stefan Meretz
-Stefan Merten
@Michel, StefanMn, StefanMz - if there is a medium-sized text (around 4,000 words?) which summarises some of your main ideas regarding peer production and the work you have been doing it could be useful for the P2P Foundation and Oekonux projects. In my view as it would not be peer reviewed it doesn't matter if it has been previously published in a different form.
Of course if StefanMn and/or StefanMz decide they want to do this instead of start a "Debate" then that does not help the abovementioned Suggestion 1. Ideally they could do both? The Debate paper does not have to be very long (1,000-3,000 words).
-Finally there is a very stimulating French author, Jean Zin, who often writes for EcoRev. I was thinking I could contact him and offer to translate one of his texts.
********************************************
Well, glad you made it to the end! ;-)
What does everyone think?
cheers,
Mathieu
[2 text/html]
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal
--
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net ; - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens