Re: [jox] Journal report - 19 August 2011
- From: Stefan Meretz <stefan meretz.de>
- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:20:08 +0200
On 2011-08-19 12:48, Mathieu ONeil wrote:
Hi all,
first, thank you, Mathieu, collecting the stuff and holding it together!
Second, I propose, to not go into deep debates content-wise here, but
instead to move interesting topics as mentioned here to the main list
ox-en.
Now, to "my" points:
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.
I like to do that. Since StefanMn is quite busy on his job, I would also
do this on my own. Obviously it would my perspective, and I think I will
address some different points as StefanMn possibly would do, but I share
the general theses: main current analytical categories do not apply (but
some do).
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.
I do not understand the meaning of "comment" here, because a comment
comments on another text and has to deal with the respective content,
but does not simply remix own stuff. Did I miss the point?
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).
I don't understand the difference between 1 and 2. If it is not really a
comment, but a remix, it could be the same text.
Ciao,
Stefan
--
Start here: www.meretz.de
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal