Message 00822 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00788 Message: 32/43 L60 [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]

[jox] Re: Announcing fork

Hi forkers, hi all,

it is a pity in which way you, the group of forkers, are doing this
step. If you are somewhat familiar with Free Software one has to say: It
is not a fork in the sense of free software, what you are doing here.
Normally, a fork is the tipping point of an open social process, where
direction of a project (or the means used or what ever) is disputed over
some time and agreement is not possible. This has not happened here,
instead, you have created a secret society inviting only selected
persons. If you are not part of the selected circle, then you have no
chance to intervene, to offer your help, your ideas etc. No transparency
at all. For example: Why didn't you invite me to join you secret
society? Because I haven't participated ox4? I am assumed to be too
narrow linked to the old Oekonux core? My positions are too radical? I
would have rejected the way you are doing the fork right now? Other
reasons? No idea.

Don't get me wrong: A fork was already in the air. So the fact is not
very surprising. But the way you are doing it is disappointing, it is
entirely not commons-like, it feels like the worst leftist mode of
splitting. Anyway.

- break, turn off anger -

I hope the new journal will flourish. The result of an open process
might simply have been a separation of the journal from the Oekonux
infrastructure. Becoming an independent journal would have been much
easier than this split. To me it seems completely unrealistic and not
useful to have CSPP and JoPP at the same time. It was as important to
have Mathieu maintaining the journal as to have StefanMn setting up the
infrastructure. If Mathieu will leave now, I see no chance for CSPP.

Therefore, I opt for closing CSPP -- or -- shifting it completely to the
independent new journal, even if JoPP will be less open compared to CSPP.

Are we able to speak about this in cooperative manner?

I already have subscribed to the new public mailinglist.

Finally, I hope that my paper will be published soon, although it does
not appear in the issue announcements.


Am 06.02.2012 10:45, schrieb Mathieu ONeil:
[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi Alessandro, all

Before addressing Alessandro's
questions I want to apologise to everyone for the lack of updates about
the journal. There has been progress, but for reasons that will
be made clear, it was necessary to work in a discreet manner.

Critical Studies in Peer Production (CSPP) journal project originally owes its
existence to Oekonux. Stefan Merten (StefanMn) flew me from Australia
to the Fourth Oekonux Conference in Manchester where I met a lot of great
people. I was inspired to start something and put my hand up to be
editor of a journal. Later StefanMn played a key role in setting up the
infrastructure for this journal. He and other people connected to
the Oekonux network also contributed many ideas and suggestions to the

However a number of serious
disagreements with StefanMn about the way the journal should operate
made it difficult to continue working serenely. This culminated a few
months ago at which point some people decided to leave the project. I
won't revisit the reasons for these conflicts as I do not want to start
another round of disputes; suffice to say that it became clear that it
was not possible for me to continue working with StefanMn and Oekonux
on a journal. 

I shared these concerns with
the other members of the recently-constituted editorial team (Athina,
Nate, Johan, Maurizio, GeorgeM) and we agreed that we needed to set up
an alternative. So, this is what we have been doing the past couple of
months with help from Franco Iacomella, who is a core member of the P2P
Foundation. P2P Foundation has kindly offered to host this new project. 

We are forking, so if StefanMn and
Oekonux want to keep using the existing platform they can, good luck to
them. In order to avoid confusion we will not be using the name CSPP
any longer. Instead we will be releasing the Journal of Peer
Production (JoPP). If anyone who contributed an article to the planned second
issue of CSPP is unhappy with publishing it under this new incarnation,
please let me know. The publication of this issue has been delayed
because of the reorganisation; the exact release date is still under
discussion. My apologies to the authors who are impatient to publish.

In terms of organisational
structure, we are proposing to have a core editorial team (rotating
every couple of years) and a wider editorial board comprising
researchers and activists. Precise roles, duties, etc, will be sorted
out on a newly-established mailing list which I invite interested
people to join:

Turning now to Alessandro's queries:

We will be using an issue structure, not research/debate/report.
The draft Wordpress website is here:

If we want to have blind peer reviewing there has to be some lack of transparency at the start of the review process, this is something we have already discussed. Widening the editorial team should protect against any potential abuse of power on my part. We are proposing that submissions occur through a different dedicated Open Journal website which is here (draft), anyone can register to it:

@Alessandro: Btw I did respond briefly to your friend and told him I was swamped right now. Asap!

all I can think of. It's a pity it did not work out with Oekonux, but
that's how it goes. All the best to StefanMn for his planned book



On 02/01/12, Alessandro Delfanti  <delfanti> wrote:
Hi everybody,

a colleague of mine used the CSPP form to get in touch with the journal about submitting a paper and he told me he received no replies so far. I don't know who receives those emails (Mathieu, I suppose?) but could you please let me know if the submission system is in place?

I think the online form is problematic, as it does not allow people to submit papers unless they get in touch with the editors, and this seems a bit odd to me. Why does a journal devoted to open and peer production establish a non-transparent filter at the very beginning of the publication process?

I am also wondering whether its current form (the way the website presents research papers, debate section and so on) is appropriate. Sometimes I am afraid CSPP doesn't look like a journal. In my opinion, it would be clearer and more easily browsable if it were divided into issues.

My two cents!

Take care

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi all

So far in the CSPP journal the editorial work - liaising with authors
and reviewers, providing feedback, copy-editing, layout etc - was
being done by one person only. This has proved to be unworkable.

To remedy this problem I approached a few people  with good writing
skills who had demonstrated through their work a commitment to the
project. I asked whether they would like to give a hand by joining in
as co-editors, and I am delighted to report positive responses from
Athina Karatzogianni, George Michaelides, Johan Söderberg, Maurizio
Teli and Nate Tkacz. I want to thank them all publicly for this sign
of support to the project.

We have begun dividing the work necessary to finalise the second
issue so some authors will be contacted by one of them instead of
myself about their work.

In terms of more precise definitions of roles, capacities, terms of
office, etc, while recognising that these are important points, my
preference would be to set organisational issues aside until after the
second issue has been released.



[2 text/html]

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

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]

Start here:

Thread: joxT00788 Message: 32/43 L60 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00822 [Homepage] [Navigation]