[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
Hi Athina, all
Thanks for the response and for your kind words :-).
Lots to think about, some very quick points:
- point well taken about the pressure on academics to publish in
high-impact journals, here I see our main objective in
a) opening up the process as we have been doing and
b) nurturing emerging researchers
- concerning the desirability of establishing connections to other
disciplines and fields of activity I think a precondition for that is to
articulate clearly
a) where we stand on the core issue of how peer/commons production fits in
in relation to capitalism and, based on that,
b) what we think should be done, in research and activist terms.
I strongly believe that unless this is clearly laid out there is a risk of
losing focus by diluting the message to accommodate all comers. Like Jakob
said before, I am not saying that there should not be a plurality of
opinions in the journal, but I am interested in seeing if we, or some of us,
can develop a collective position that could orient future activity in an
effective political manner.
cheers,
Mathieu
On 08/24/11, Athina Karatzogianni <athina.k gmail.com> wrote:
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
Hi Everyone
I have been off the gird for a while this summer, so apologies for not
participating at my normal level.
First of all, I found Mathieu's efforts brilliant in relation to summing
up
and demonstrating some of the work produced for the journal.
I am aware that many others have worked toward reviewing and maintaing
the
site, as well as processing the various special issues.
These type of activities deserve our thanks and gratitude.
As this is an experimental journal and we learn as we go alone, the
debates
generated in the last couple of years or so point to an admittedly slow
but
nevertheless crystallising consensus of that what the journal is about
both
in terms of internal governance and process, as for many who have joined
this effort find this is of critical importance, but also about content
which is what is externally consumed more and there considerable work has
been done to ensure
fairness and trasnparency to the colleagues who submit to us, to
reviewers
and potential readers.
What I would propose at this point is that perhaps more *incentive is
given
to individuals to participate even more actively to boost up production
of
content and turn out, as well as a faster resolution on issues which are
of
a more administrative nature*, such s names and indexing and so forth. A
way
to do this I believe is to have a meeting of the core individuals at some
point online even this year which of course will be open to everyone who
would like to get involved more closely with the project and the journal.
A second issue is *visibility *of the journal, and here I believe we
should
look into linking beyond the usual internet studies specialists to other
journals and sites which look into more broad issues of political
economy,
governance, politics, organizational studies, business psychology and
invite
academics from varied backgrounds to contribute to the discussions. The
criteria to join the SCcommittee in my opinion would be based on merit in
relation to the area, but also willingness to actively participate in the
production of the journal. A broader mix of individuals could forge a
special issue on the broader context within which peer production finds
itself currently for instance. Reaching out to more broader areas would
mean
we would have *larger participation, more hands on dock, a broader
readership, and many mroe connections which would raise the visibility of
what we do and also more importantly raise quality of output for the
journal, so it becomes more relevant and recognised as such contributing
to
the overall debates as they unravel presently.*
On the micro-physics of everyday running of the journal, I believe that
to a
certain extent *some small decisions need to be taken much faster by the
core,* unless there is a feeling that the issue has a merit to be
discussed
throughly on the list. This would indeed save us time and would avoid
task
and process related relentless back and forth, which has in the past
delayed
considerably the production process. Not to say that some of the debates
haven't made the focus clear, but at times I am of the opinion that we
could
have been all spared of smaller issues relating to maintenance and the
politics of semiotics and so on.
The current environment in academia, at least in the UK where I am based
is
in a remarkably difficult state, as some of you may know. Academics do
have
unfortunately focus their activities on publishing in high-impact
publications at this point for the forthcoming Research Exercise
Framework
and this consideration might turn into a low-interest in activities such
as
these. Our advantages over these publications is that *we can publish
FAST
and correct even faster*, *and generate online debates in a cutting edge
area.* We should start therefore focusing on these aspects and move much
faster that we have done in the past, *network more with broader groups
of
scholars and practitioners and aim to generate public debates on these
issues which take us beyond preaching to the converted.*
I know that certain elements of what I have just wrote do not exactly
paint
the rosiest picture of the environment within which we are called to
contribute, but as I said at the start we can make a contribution, and
make
this journal relevant to more people, if we actively point our attention
to
these issues right at this point in the journal's development.
Best,
Athina
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil anu.edu.au
wrote:
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
Hi Rob, all
I've been away from my computer for a couple of days and was looking
forward to checking to see if there were any neat-o messages and I am
"fully
stoked" there are, and that one of them is a comment by Rob on this
list!
Its true that peer production effort is being co-opted by capital. But
I
think there is another side to this, which is that what matters is the
issue
of to what extent peer production is not only commons-based, but also
commons-oriented.
It is its quality as commons, i.e. as negation of the commodity, which
opposes commons-oriented peer production (C.O.P.P.?) to the capitalist
market, which is based on the rarity of some commodities, or the
protection
of non-rare ones through copyright.
The governance question is then mainly a question of how to favour the
production of this commons. There is usually some overlap between
different
modes of legitimate domination, which can be described in neo-Weberian
terms
(collectivist, charismatic, etc) or as some other combination of
regulation/governance mechanisms, see for example:
DEMAZIÈRE D., HORN F. and ZUNE M. (2007), « The Functioning of a Free
Software Community. Entanglement of Three Regulation Modes - Control,
Autonomous and Distributed », in Science Studies, vol. 20, p. 34-54.
In this regard, the fact that the journal is called Critical Studies in
Peer Production (CSPP) is starting to bother me a little, because it
puts, in my view, too much emphasis on the _process_ (peer production,
which is to certain extent dependent on, and enmeshed in capitalism)
rather than on the sought-after _result_ of the process, the production
of
commons. So I am wondering if a more appropriate title for the journal
might not
be Critical Studies in Commons Production (CSCP)?
Since the journal has not yet been put up for indexation it would not
be a big deal to change the name, we could just explain why we felt it
was necessary.
??
cheers,
Mathieu
On 08/22/11, Robert Ackland <robert.ackland anu.edu.au> wrote:
Hello,
I decided it was time to de-lurk and comment on the "comparing peer
production to capitalism" thread(s).
A caveat is that my interest in peer production is more practical
than
academic, having used of linux and other open source software in my
research since the late 90s.
What I don't understand about some parts of this thread is where peer
production is compared directly with capitalism. To the extent that
PP
is a new mode of governance, isn't more appropriate to compare it
with
other existing modes of governance e.g. market and hierarchy (and
network, for that matter)? The paper on this I keep on going back to
is:
Demil, B. and Lecoq, X. (2006). Neither market nor hierarchy nor
network: The emergence of bazaar governance. Organization Studies,
27(10):1447-66.
Even the production of FLOSS is in my opinion not pure peer
production.
In a lot of FLOSS developer communities there exists hierarchy and
network, alongside PP. So it is a overlay of different governance
systems but with FLOSS, PP is the dominant mode of governance while
the
e.g. Microsoft way of creating software is more about hierarchy (and
market).
In terms of production and distribution of goods, capitalism
emphasises
market and hierarchy, while communism emphasises hierarchy (command
and
control). It is interesting to see how peer production is being
added
to the capitalist's toolkit (alongside market and hierarchy) - this
has
been pointed out by others in this thread. I contributed to an
Oxford
Internet Institute-McKinsey Technology Initiative project called
"Performance of distributed problem-solving networks". This was
ostensibly about peer production, and those guys (McKinsey) are not
anti-capitalism.
Thank you for an interesting discussion list.
Regards,
Rob
On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 09:45 +0200, Maurizio Teli wrote:
[snip]
********************************************
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
-- COMMENT ON THE TOPIC (quite long)
StefanMn was an interesting point, that I try to collapse in the
conviction that "Peer production is a new mode of production. *As
such*
it can not be understood with the tools which were valid and fine
for
the previous mode of production - namely capitalism."
I can agree with that but at the moment, stating that "peer
production
IS a new mode of production" is so strong that the "old tools"
should
be
tested and proven uneffective for the task at hand (and, by the
way,
the
same concept of "mode of production" is an old tool that as proven
to
be
extremely effective)
Mathieu and Matthew argument (FS is part of a capitalist society,
so
understanding the relationship between the two modes of production
is
useful) is a convinving one and, moreover, the aim of the special
issue
is explicitly to understand the novelty of PP in the instance of FS
from
other points of view, not only the ones of organization of labour
or
economic production.
To make it short, our perspective is: IF Free Software is changing
the
epistemology of Computer Science, THEN Free Software novelty is
stronger
than thought until now.
Otherwise, the debate on the novelty should move further in
exploring
the relationship between means of production, their property, and
the
institutional setting that is previewed by the configuration of
such
relationship (Jakob concept of productive negation is an
interesting
one).
going over on the debate, Stefan wrote:
Last week (12 days ago) Maurizio Teli wrote:
> From the perspective of social organization, Free Software can
be
> conceived as [...] standing outside
> institutionalized forms of power
Well, someone who writes this has no idea of peer production not
speaking of Free Software. Of course there are institutionalized
forms
of power.
Now the *really* interesting question is: As a modern leftist you
believe that institutionalized forms of power are bad in general.
How
does it come then, that in Free Software we see such
institutionalized
forms of power?
Here probably the short presentation of the special issue was
lacking
in
idexicality. Kelty's argument is that Free Software is standing
outside
ACTUALLY instituzionalized forms of power, creating NEW ones.
If we look at FS, the case of corporate FLOSS is showing clearly
how
the
actual institutional setting (in its wider sense, including "the
market") is envisioning a potential of domestication of FLOSS as
another
tool in the reproduction of capital. Therefore, the novelty of FS
should
be investigated further.
[snip]
--
-------------------------------------
Dr Robert Ackland
Fellow and Masters Coordinator, Australian Demographic and Social
Research Institute, The Australian National University
e-mail: robert.ackland anu.edu.au
homepage: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/robert.php
project: http://voson.anu.edu.au
Information about the Master of Social Research
(Social Science of the Internet specialisation):
http://adsri.anu.edu.au/study/msr.php
-------------------------------------
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal
--
****
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]anu.edu.au
web: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php
[2 text/html]
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal
--
<http://www.routledge.com/books/search/keywords/karatzogianni/>
Dr Athina Karatzogianni<
http://www2.hull.ac.uk/FASS/humanities/media,_culture_and_society/staff/karatzogianni,_dr_athina.aspx
Lecturer in Media, Culture and Society
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
The University of Hull
United Kingdom
HU6 7RX
T: ++44 (0) 1482 46 5790
F: ++44 (0) 1482 466107
E: a.karatzogianni hull.ac.uk
Download my work for free here:
http://works.bepress.com/athina_karatzogianni/
[2 text/html]
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal
--
****
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]anu.edu.au
web: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php
[2 text/html]
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal