Re: [jox] Draft CFP
- From: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>
- Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 18:45:17 +0200
Hi Mathieu and all!
I'm replying to this mail before I go through the whole thread.
Last week (10 days ago) Mathieu O'Neil wrote:
In any case it is now the northern summer and I get the impression that not everyone is around.
This is well possible. During (Northern) summer things go slower...
Specifically, we need to establish a webpage
As you can see on [pox] we are in the process of setting up Plone.
Personally I worked on using Ubuntu packages recently and I think this
will be complete next weekend latest.
If you want to have a webpage before the Plone site is up we can
easily put something to http://www.oekonux.org/journal/ and we could
also setup the journal domain to point there. Just raise your finger
(and provide the material you would like to see online).
BTW, StefanMz and StefanMn, I would much prefer it if the address was http:cspp.ox.etc rather than http:csipp.ox.etc... "sipp" does not sound great to me and it make me think of sipping a cup.:-(
Whatever you (plural) want. It is also possible to set up multiple
domains like
critical-studies-in-peer-production.oekonux.org
cspp.oekonux.org
...
1 <journal title / mission statement>
2 <topic and type of submissions sought>
3 <selection criteria>
4 <scientific committee: members and affiliation>
5 <publisher>
Sounds good to me.
1 <journal title / mission statement>
I added "multidisciplinary" - not wedded to it but thought it might be useful.
I like "multidisciplinary" - in fact I think our aim *is*
multidisciplinary. Also I remember that this once was a real hype in
science - though this might be past.
I took out "self-organized" in part because of what StefanMn said ("capitalist firms are self-organized also") though I think what was intended here is that these projects are less hierarchical than traditional corporations or bureaus, but also because it was redundant with the self-selection of tasks mentioned later in the selection: brevity is best!
Very good. In fact self-selection is a very fine word conveying the
meaning very well.
I also added "contradictions" of peer productions to flag that peer production is not without its problems (see point below).
Can't find "contradictions". Forgotten?
2 <topic and type of submissions sought>
This is important as it shows what we are interested in specifically. I incorporated George's suggestions and some of my own for this list.
<The following is a side-issue regarding a particular subtopic - please skip ahead if you want to focus on the CFP itself>
A very interesting point. I'd love to see this in [ox-en].
In my view if the journal is going to be "critical" it would be useful for it to also be self-critical and self-reflexive. So acknowledging the role that free software and free labour can play in capitalism is important, at a simple level like I said before: "build Debian / Wikipedia for free; buy a new computer"); but also in terms of understanding how injustice is now framed not in terms of exploitation but of exclusion (from networks, from power, from employment).
I'm not for a second saying that peer production does not have very positive qualities (germ form for future society...). But I think that cooptation exists and should not be ignored. In fact clarifying and overcoming the tension between the cooptation of critique and peer production's emancipatory potential is for me an important task of the journal!
Well, I understand peer production as a germ form process. According
to germ form theory in the expansion step a germ form becomes an
important thing in the old system. In this sense it is absolutely
interesting to understand in which way peer production "matches" the
current state of capitalism.
<citation style>
APA, Harvard, Chicago??...
Nice Bohemian villages to me ;-) .
What would be more important to me: In what form(at) do we require
contributions? It should be something which can be integrated into
Plone easily but also needs to be common enough. I always wanted to
create this converter converting OpenOffice to reStructuredText... We
should *not* accept Word format, however. I mean if someone writes
about these topics we can expect that s/he aligns at least a little
bit...
3 <selection criteria>
Most people (who expressed an opinion) seem to prefer an open system. I'm not against it but not having blind reviewing in favour of open discussion may turn some academics off
True. And a blind review is not an end in itself of course but -
AFAICS - a nice instrument to judge on content instead of person.
( StefanMn: remember how the academic organiser of the Manchester conference decided against pursuing with [ox] for this very reason?)
No. May be I'm not remembering but I think I never heard this. Who
said this about which (possible) supporter? (Answers by private mail
please.)
What I would suggest is that at this stage we just say "all articles are peer reviewed" and discuss further the way this would work once we have more people on board - for example we could have blind peer review for new/unpublished submissions which are then discussed on the list? StefanMn may be right that openness will have a moderating effect.
Well, what is the goal of a blind review? AFAICS the main goal is that
reviewers / editors are not able to judge a contribution because of
the person who contributed. In this case it would be totally
sufficient if in an open process we remove the contributor's name in
the open process and keep the name secret. The names are revealed only
when a contribution is accepted. I'm pretty sure this could be
supported by a technical system so it even doesn't need a special
person who keeps all the secrets.
4 <scientific committee: members and affiliation>
It's important to have a decent number - so far we have 7 people which is too low in my view - so we need to build up the scientific committee with like-minded and credible people. What I am planning to do once the text below has been properly discussed and amended is to send it to a few academic researchers I think may be interested in joining in.
Regarding non-academics, if anyone has any ideas of people who might be suitable (have practical experience of peer production and can write well) that could be discussed as well. Maybe send me a private email?
What is the role of the scientific committee exactly? Exactly if you
say that they "write well"?
Also:
George N Dafermos wrote:
About inviting *other people* to join in the list and in the journal
process if we think they would be interested: I suppose this
ultimately hinges on Mathieu who as the maintainer of this project
(lead editor of the journal) is in a position to assess the value of
recruiting others. Anyhow, I reckon we should be careful not to end
up with a list/editorial group of a hundred people who, having
hardly anything in common, only aggravate the organisational costs
of cooperation, thus encumbering the progress of the project. Also,
we should take account of the effect of such a recruitment on
theoretical coherence.
StefanMn said: "Valid points. May be we should set some deadline then after which
people are only invited by the existing group?"
I don't think we will have a hundred people... I'm all for getting people who are good and who we get on with etc. We will see how we go over the next few months with recruitment and then indeed once we have a critical mass / minimum number, we will stop this phase and from then on the group could suggest new people. This will need to be reviewed in the northen fall.
Well, my experience is that if a new social space is set up that in
the beginning it is never fully clear in which direction it will run -
regardless on how much you talk about it. The first few contributions
make this clear. If you like they set a direction for everyone to see.
If we start with a lot of people then the very start can become
difficult and the result can be confusing which IMHO would be no good.
If we start with a focused team then the team can expanded later.
But may be we should talk about goals. My goal it would be to define
the journal in practical terms first and then open it up more. The
basic issue here is who makes the (initial) decisions. That is also my
question about the role of the scientific committee. If it just a
number of reviewers then this is one thing. If members make decisions
then it is a different thing.
<Next is the issue of affiliation or identification.>
University people are a priori unproblematic, they are identified by their institution.
The question is, how do we present non-university based people? Do we put the same term(s) for all of them - activist, practitioner - or the name of their specific projects?
The name of the project is definitely needed. Also the role may be
given more precisely - such as "founder and maintainer" in my case.
For example, Michel is across both areas but is probably better-known for P2PF so it seems natural to put him as P2PF?
Could that be up to the respective person?
For StefanMn it would make sense to put [ox] but then below it might say [ox] is the publisher - does that make him the publisher? Does this create a confusion between distinct areas?
I agree that this confusion needs to be prevented. But if we put the
publisher on the page the room for confusion is small - right?
5 <publisher>
... Or do we not have a publisher?
However if CSPP is hosted by [ox] it makes sense to say what [ox] is IMHO.
Well, I think *we* don't need a publisher - do we?
Again: What is presenting a publisher good for? What is the role of a
publisher? Who are we appealing to with presenting a publisher? And if
[ox] is the publisher: What does that mean exactly? The registered
association in Germany being the only legal body we have? Hardly...
=-=-=-=-=-=
Anyway, here is the proposed CFP...
=-=-=-=-=-=
I comment only for which I have questions / suggestions:
Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:
-history of peer production
May be also
- future of peer production
-peer production and expertise
May be we could make this more generic by
- preconditions for peer production
-political economy of peer production
-critical theory and peer production
By critical theory I understand Marx' theory - right?
-forms and functions of peer production
-peer production and exchange
-peer production and social movements
-peer production as ideology in capitalism
- peer production in/vs./and capitalism
would be more generic.
-governance in peer projects
-peer production of hardware
- expansion of peer production
would be more generic.
Grüße
Stefan
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal