Message 00829 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00788 Message: 38/43 L61 [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] Re: Announcing fork

Hi all,
I don't think I want to be in a mailing list which main discussion is going to revolve around problems I don't have any part in. I haven't participated to any Oekonux activity and was never interested in running the journal, so I am unsubscribing from this mailing list right now.

Hi Mathieu, all!

Really interesting.

5 days ago Mathieu ONeil wrote:
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

This is not true. Neither did I fly the airplane nor did I pay. You
were invited for a talk on a conference by Oekonux and P2P Foundation
and have been refunded like most of the other invited speakers who
chose that option.

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

That a minority here also contributes to Oekonux seems of little
importance. I guess everyone here contributes to other things, too,
so this can be hardly of any importance.

However a number of serious
disagreements with StefanMn about the way the journal should operate
made it difficult to continue working serenely.

In other words: You had serious disagreements with an active
contributor - probably the most active one. In fact the disagreements
where serious because they went to the very roots of the project.
During the course of this discussion you managed to make this active
contributor stop his technical contributions. In the end of this
discussion it finally became clear that you don't want openness for
the work process which means that you don't want a peer production

It would be good if the latter would have been clear from the start
because then I would never had contributed to the project. Personally
I feel betrayed because for some time I spent my heart and my
contributions to something which finally turned out to be the wrong
movie :-( .

This culminated a few
months ago at which point some people decided to leave the project.

This happened after *you* opened the list for content discussion. I
for one opposed this and nearly completely kept my position -
although there were absurd accusations against me. It seems that I
have been right that opening the list for content discussion is

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 agree that you had problems with an active contribtor who was not
streamlined to you changing opinions.

Apart from this you never worked with Oekonux. Oekonux offered a
technical platform which you used. AFAICS there were never any
differences about this offering as such so it really is only part of
your drama that the Oekonux project has something to do with this.

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.

Beware: Johan and GeorgeM also contributed to Oekonux, already. That
is 40% of your secret team...

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.

This is certainly a good new home for you. P2P Foundation hosts a lot
of projects around peer production furthering or damaging it.

We are forking,

This is really a good statement because it shows that you have really
no idea about peer production. You are the maintainer. If you decide
to change fundamental things in your project then this is not a fork
but a normal move which you are free to do at any time. If others are
unhappy with your decisions *they* have the ability to fork.

StefanMz already said what is necessary about the way you did that
move and what this has to do with peer production.

But I understand that this wording helps your drama. Of course you
will tell the world that you are the innocent victim of some dark
forces labelled Oekonux which forced you to do this. Of course you
are not responsible for what happened at all. As the maintainer of
the project. Good joke indeed.

The truth, however, is this: You as the main person responsible for
this project found no way to convince an active contributor that the
original setup of the project was wrong. Although you were not able
to convince this contributor he finally gave in - even without
leaving the project. In other words: The total victory is yours.
Still you feel the need to even change the platform. Really

so if StefanMn and
Oekonux want to keep using the existing platform they can,

The people who are unhappy have the right to fork. True. Since I'm
also the maintainer of the Oekonux project I'll make these things a
topic there because Oekonux needs to decide what to do with the
artifacts which are left behind.

I welcome your decision because it makes very clear that you have no
idea of what peer production is *as a mode of production*. However,
you know very well how to organize splits which are so common in the
left. Indeed my concerns which grew over time are fully approved by
your mode of doing things. For some time I really had hoped that I
was wrong on this. Unfortunately I was right :-( .



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

Thread: joxT00788 Message: 38/43 L61 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00829 [Homepage] [Navigation]