November 2014 - JoPP-Public - lists.ourproject.org

News and Issues
by Mathieu ONeil 01 Dec '14

01 Dec '14

Hi everyone? As maxigas has been so active in developing JoPP the editorial team (Francesca, Johan, Maurizio, Nate, Sara and me) decided to "make it official" by inviting him to join us, he accepted, and we are delighted to have him. Since the release of JoPP#5, a number of new people have subscribed to this list. We don't have any rules about this apart from (I guess) welcoming you, inviting you to join in discussions, and - if you feel like it - introducing yourselves and your interests? Or: should the membership list be made public? I don't know. Finally, looking ahead: -issue#5 on shared machine shops was just released (for consistency's sake, I propose to backdate it to July 2014) -issue#6 on law to be released in Dec/jan -special issue on #FLOK to be released in Feb (numbered or not?) -issue on #feminism to be released in July First question: is this all a bit much - should we space things out a bit? Delay FLOK maybe? Second question: what comes after? It was mentioned that #feminism may be split in two. Whether that happens or not, we need to think about future issues. Johan and others have agreed to work on an "alternative internet" issue, inspired by this event: http://www.iscc.cnrs.fr/spip.php?article1912 Thanks to them for taking this on. More info soon. We need further issues. We have never addressed privacy / surveillance. I contacted someone in that space, but she declined, too busy. Is anyone out there interested in putting a team together around that? if any other ideas are forthcoming, and you want to explore them privately as a first step: please email an editorial team member directly. Or post straight here. We need to plan things well in advance. It really is very open, and an opportunity to explore ideas in any direction, with like-minded people, whilst having fun, so don't be shy! On behalf of the editorial team, cheers, Mathieu

6 10

Re: [JoPP-Public] News and Issues
by george dafermos 20 Nov '14

20 Nov '14

Hi Mathieu, hi all, On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil(a)anu.edu.au> wrote: > [...] > > Finally, looking ahead: > > -issue#5 on shared machine shops was just released (for consistency's > sake, I propose to backdate it to July 2014) > > -issue#6 on law to be released in Dec/jan > > -special issue on #FLOK to be released in Feb (numbered or not?) > > -issue on #feminism to be released in July > > > First question: is this all a bit much - should we space things out a > bit? Delay FLOK maybe? > I just had a chat with Vasilis about it and we both think it makes sense to delay the special issue on FLOK. Although we could go ahead with the release (as planned) in the end of February, given that the issue on law is to be released in January and the next release of an issue is scheduled to be in July, maybe it'd be better to postpone the release the FLOK issue for a couple of months so that it's released about two months after the law issue and two months before the next one. So, we're basically proposing to release it in April. @list members: What do you think? -G.

1 0

Fwd: Open Science Peer Review Oath (via Techdirt)
by Dr. Peter Troxler 16 Nov '14

16 Nov '14

http://f1000research.com/articles/3-271/v1 is that something to consider for JoPP? / Peter Begin forwarded message: > Open access is about making academic research more widely available, particularly when it is publicly funded. But there is a broader open science movement that seeks to make the entire scientific process -- from initial experiments to the final dissemination of results -- transparent, and thus reproducible. One crucial aspect of that complete process is peer review, whereby experts in a field provide advice about the quality of new research, either to editors prior to a paper being published in a journal, or more directly, by reviewing work publicly online. Recognizing the importance of this step for the integrity and validity of the scientific process, a group has drawn up what it calls the "Open Science Peer Review Oath": > We have formulated an oath that codifies the role of reviewers in helping to ensure that the science they review is sufficiently open and reproducible; it includes guidelines not just on how to review professionally, but also on how to support transparent, reproducible and responsible research, while optimising its societal impact and maximising its visibility. > The Oath's 17 components include commitments to act fairly and ethically, for example, the following: > While reviewing this manuscript: > > i) I will sign my review in order to be able to have an open dialogue with you > > ii) I will be honest at all times > > v) I will not unduly delay the review process > > vi) I will not scoop research that I had not planned to do before reading the manuscript > > vii) I will be constructive in my criticism > > x) I will try to assist in every way I ethically can to provide criticism and praise that is valid, relevant and cognisant of community norms > It also includes actions specifically designed to foster science that is truly open: > xi) I will encourage the application of any other open science best practices relevant to my field that would support transparency, reproducibility, re-use and integrity of your research > > xiii) I will check that the data, software code and digital object identifiers are correct, and the models presented are archived, referenced, and accessible > > xiv) I will comment on how well you have achieved transparency, in terms of materials and methodology, data and code access, versioning, algorithms, software parameters and standards, such that your experiments can be repeated independently > > xv) I will encourage deposition with long-term unrestricted access to the data that underpin the published concept, towards transparency and re-use > > xvi) I will encourage central long-term unrestricted access to any software code and support documentation that underpin the published concept, both for reproducibility of results and software availability > Although the framing of an "Oath" for open science peer review may sound rather over the top -- slightly pompous, even -- it rightly underlines the seriousness with which peer review ought to be conducted. It remains to be seen what kind of response it receives from the wider scientific community, and whether it becomes a fixed element of the open science movement.

2 3

Re: [JoPP-Public] Book of Peer Production
by Mathieu ONeil 14 Nov '14

14 Nov '14

Hi again I added a new level: projects -> books > book of peer production Otherwise on the frontpage under "latest" it would say "books" not "book of peer production" So the right URL is: http://peerproduction.net/projects/books/book-of-peer-production/ Apologies for any heartburn. Mathieu ________________________________________ From: Mathieu ONeil Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 14:16 To: maxigas Subject: Re: [JoPP-Public] Book of Peer Production Hi all I set up a page for the book on the jopp site: http://peerproduction.net/projects/books/ I also updated the projects page: http://peerproduction.net/projects/ If someone with admin rights wants to enrich this in any way, go for it. cheers, Mathieu ________________________________________ From: maxigas <maxigas(a)anargeek.net> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 11:39 To: jopp-public(a)lists.ourproject.org; Mathieu ONeil Subject: Re: [JoPP-Public] Book of Peer Production From: Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil(a)anu.edu.au> Subject: Re: [JoPP-Public] Book of Peer Production Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:30:22 +0000 > Hi maxigas, all > > OK, so my first possible solution for the projects page was to divide it in several components: > -some independent from us (surveys, translations) > -some led by us (books) > But then I thought that some JoPP-people might do translations as well. > > So I think we will need a more contingent, fluid taxonomy ie "this project > done by jopp"; "this project outside jopp". Do you want to do this? Let me > know. Nate commented in a different exchange that we should announce through > lists etc as it is already circulating, so we need a stable URL. i don't see "hardcopies of jopp" as something either connected to jopp or not. i can perfectly imagine that some people in a conference we never heard of decide to print their own reader from their own selection of jopp articles, and i hope it will actually happen. if it happens we would put it in the same category as this one, i guess, because from a reader's point of view it matters little. that said, we should keep some control of the brand, even if that is rather futile when we have no trade marks and we are running on a public domain licencing policy. :) > Concerning web to print, all sounds good. I don't know much about that so > happy to help you in any way I can. great. i think this will became interesting in a few months' time when i explored options and some stuff that others are working on came out. i also try to suggest to the feminist issue editors to get a grant which would allow a move in this direction. > Concerning PDFs, I agree that the current system is not ideal but until we > have a 100% foolproof replacement in place I would not support replacing it. well the one we have is not even foolproof because for instance you have to enter all the header details, metadata, etc. by hand. i mean you first create the article and give it a title as a wordpress page, and then you add the title a second time as metadata? not a foolproof method... not to mention that images mysteriously dissappear if you put a non-breaking space (" ") in your text, etc. but as i wrote this is a middle-term plan, i guess that what i want to have does not exist as code at this time in history... and i agree that it should be as user friendly, or hopefully friendlier, than the current module we use. -- maxigas, kiberpunk FA00 8129 13E9 2617 C614 0901 7879 63BC 287E D166 http://research.metatron.ai/ When capitalism started it wasn’t legal.

2 2

Re: [JoPP-Public] Book of Peer Production
by Mathieu ONeil 14 Nov '14

14 Nov '14

Hi all I set up a page for the book on the jopp site: http://peerproduction.net/projects/books/ I also updated the projects page: http://peerproduction.net/projects/ If someone with admin rights wants to enrich this in any way, go for it. cheers, Mathieu ________________________________________ From: maxigas <maxigas(a)anargeek.net> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 11:39 To: jopp-public(a)lists.ourproject.org; Mathieu ONeil Subject: Re: [JoPP-Public] Book of Peer Production From: Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil(a)anu.edu.au> Subject: Re: [JoPP-Public] Book of Peer Production Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:30:22 +0000 > Hi maxigas, all > > OK, so my first possible solution for the projects page was to divide it in several components: > -some independent from us (surveys, translations) > -some led by us (books) > But then I thought that some JoPP-people might do translations as well. > > So I think we will need a more contingent, fluid taxonomy ie "this project > done by jopp"; "this project outside jopp". Do you want to do this? Let me > know. Nate commented in a different exchange that we should announce through > lists etc as it is already circulating, so we need a stable URL. i don't see "hardcopies of jopp" as something either connected to jopp or not. i can perfectly imagine that some people in a conference we never heard of decide to print their own reader from their own selection of jopp articles, and i hope it will actually happen. if it happens we would put it in the same category as this one, i guess, because from a reader's point of view it matters little. that said, we should keep some control of the brand, even if that is rather futile when we have no trade marks and we are running on a public domain licencing policy. :) > Concerning web to print, all sounds good. I don't know much about that so > happy to help you in any way I can. great. i think this will became interesting in a few months' time when i explored options and some stuff that others are working on came out. i also try to suggest to the feminist issue editors to get a grant which would allow a move in this direction. > Concerning PDFs, I agree that the current system is not ideal but until we > have a 100% foolproof replacement in place I would not support replacing it. well the one we have is not even foolproof because for instance you have to enter all the header details, metadata, etc. by hand. i mean you first create the article and give it a title as a wordpress page, and then you add the title a second time as metadata? not a foolproof method... not to mention that images mysteriously dissappear if you put a non-breaking space (" ") in your text, etc. but as i wrote this is a middle-term plan, i guess that what i want to have does not exist as code at this time in history... and i agree that it should be as user friendly, or hopefully friendlier, than the current module we use. -- maxigas, kiberpunk FA00 8129 13E9 2617 C614 0901 7879 63BC 287E D166 http://research.metatron.ai/ When capitalism started it wasn’t legal.

1 0

Book of Peer Production
by Johan Söderberg 14 Nov '14

14 Nov '14

Hi, As part of our JoPP outreach program, we released a printed version at FSCONS, Göteborg, called "Book of Peer Production" with chapters from (most) of the contributing speakers, and a few others (Adrian Smith, Johan Söderberg, Mathieu O'Neil, George Dafermos, Austin Toombs, Shaowen Bardzell, Jeffrey Bardzell & Maxigas), and the layout done by volunteer Karin Sjöberg. The book was printed under the auspice of the laureated Nordic Summer University Press. The pdf-version is included with this mail, go ahead and distribute it as you see fit. We printed 125 copies, part of the cost was covered by the conference venue, part of it came from an undisclosed, private VC. The VC wants to recover his costs, however, so we had to sell the hard copies, about a fourth of them have been sold so far. If you want your own, very limited, special edition, dont hesitate to send me 5 euros + cost of transportation. /Johan

4 8

Report from FSCONS & co.
by maxigas 12 Nov '14

12 Nov '14

hi, please find below the report from fscons and some other stuff. i also attached two photographs, of me and johan doing the release. the pictures are by "Sam Photo and Film", licenced under Creative Commons by-nc-sa 2.00 Generic: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/ if everybody is OK with it, i can make a post for the "news" section of the website from this too. -------8k-------{ cut here }-------8k-------8k-------8k-------8k-------8k-------8k % Report from FSCONS & co. % 2014-11-06 % maxigas et al. FSCONS, a “Free Society Conference and Nordic Summit” started in 2007 and appeared to be very much alive, gathering around 150 practitioners, activists and advocates mostly from Scandinavian countries. All of us were impressed by the good mix of people and topics, the kindness and trust we received from the organisers and attendants, and the level of the conversations at the meeting. It happened at the Humanities faculty of Göteborg University where there was ample space, good drinks like Club Mate and a bit too clean architectural environment. All in all we felt that the manifesto was put into practice: FSCONS exists to provide a meeting place where subjects covering society, culture and technology can be discussed and brought to life in peer discussions, without being confined to each particular subject area. It should provide both the physical and virtual space where people, organisations and governments, with interest in the three subject areas can meet in a participatory and constructive dialogue. The unique combination of topics creates a platform where cross-pollination between the areas can occur, and where new co-operations and thoughts can emerge which allows the participants to find new inspiration even from areas outside of their own. We had three primary missions (in order of appearance): 1. Announce the new issue of the online Journal of Peer Production (#5: Shared Machine Shops) 2. Release the Book of Peer Production, an anthology of articles from the journal, mostly authored by FSCONS speakers 3. Present the Peer Production Track at FSCONS ## Announcement and Release We did a short plug for the new issue and the anthology, with a projector showing the website, a table full of freshly printed “books” and free-as-in-beer cocktails offered to the audience. We were missing Sara Trochetti who could not join us as planned, and decided to invest the budget thus left over in marketing, i.e. booze. Pictures should come soon. There were around 50 people at this point. The reception was followed by a Kurbeats [1] concert and maxigas did some real time visual synthesis with Ibniz [2] to provide a backdrop. On Saturday we mostly followed the excellent Commons track organised by Douglas Hine [3], manned a Peer Production table selling the anthology and prepared for the presentations. Sunday was the day for the Peer Production track, where in the words of Johan “we managed to capture and hold the attention of a substantial part of the audience during the day”. He screened the documentary “The Lucas Plan: The birth of alternative technology” [4] which was unearthed and republished by Adrian Smith [5]. Maxigas gave a funny rant on the backwardness of hackers as a source of political agency in the face of technological determinism, entitled “The Luddite Aspects of Hackerdom: How to Build Time Machines to Alter the Course of History” [6], well received by practitioners and theorists alike, with the phrase “it is forks all the way down” describing the history of the Maemo platform making rounds on Twitter. Kevin Flanagan from the P2P Foundation followed with “Cooperation and the Commons: Challenges and opportunities for an Open Cooperative movement”, [7] giving a thorough overview of the peer production practices landscape with an emphasis on cooperatives. This tied in well with the next presentation, “Building a Society of the Commons in Ecuador: A look at FLOK Society Project’s experiences with the bottom-up development of public policies for a Society of the Commons” by George Dafermos who is currently working on the FLOK issue for JoPP. [8] Both presentations incited many questions and various aspects of peer production and the Ecuadorian context were clarified. Between the two latter presentations we listened with great excitement to the keynote by Leigh Honeywell, “Models We Use to Change the World”, where she talked about the establishment of feminist hackerspaces, recommending Sophie Toupin’s excellent article in the latest issue of JoPP. Overall, we thought that she promoted “managing the revolution”, an approach rooted in the worst aspects of modern instrumental rationality where – as Douglas Hine put it earlier – your collaborators are seen as a resource to be calculated with, rather than as potential friends that you could build affective commons-based social relations with. But then she also highlighted the key role of emotional labour in organisations and the gendered distribution of it, which is crucial to bring into the conversation around the infrastructures of peer production. Finally, Johan Söderberg talked about the political economics of DMT in “Novelty against sovereignty: The case of DIY drug extraction”, analysing how grassroots innovation around “legal highs” is recuperated by the state and capital – particularly the European Union and big pharma. The idea that circumventors are circumvented through the dynamics and discourse of innovation puzzled some. The conference closed with a series of short lightning talks where maxigas called on the audience to Scan All The Books [10] and described the digitalisation workflow of digital public librarians in Calafou. All in all, we felt that this weekend was a big step in establishing the Journal of Peer Production as a visible forum for the critical discussion of peer production phenomena for scholars, activists and practitioners alike. We have to follow up on (a.) our discussions around the FLOK Society issue, which are not included in this report, with putting the anthology online (b.) and (c.) on how and the ideas about making it easier to produce paper versions of the journal in the future, and (d.) how to render systematic the presence of JoPP at hacker conferences, for instance, by setting up a list over the places that have been visited by us and where we will be going next. We’d like to thank everybody who contributed to the process or simply waited patiently for the next issue to come out… ps: and now, I am off to present and promote the Book of Peer Production at the Free Culture Forum in Barcelona! [11] :) * * * [1]: https://frab.fscons.org/en/fscons14/public/events/202 [2]: http://pelulamu.net/ibniz/ [3]: https://frab.fscons.org/en/fscons14/public/speakers/14 [4]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pgQqfpub-c [5]: http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-5-shared-machine-shops/peer-reviewed… [6]: http://research.metatron.ai/slides6/index.html [7]: http://research.metatron.ai/static/kevin_flanagan-fscons2014-cooperation_an… [8]: http://research.metatron.ai/static/george_dafermos-fscons2014-building_a_so… [9]: http://research.metatron.ai/static/johan_soderberg-fscons2014-novelty_again… [10]: http://research.metatron.ai/slides7/index.html [11]: http://lab.2014.fcforum.net/en/schedule/ -- maxigas, kiberpunk FA00 8129 13E9 2617 C614 0901 7879 63BC 287E D166 http://research.metatron.ai/ When capitalism started it wasn’t legal.

2 1

New issue -- Journal of Peer Production #5: Shared Machine Shops
by maxigas 03 Nov '14

03 Nov '14

hi, Please spread this to lists, but check on the pad [0] before you send the mail and cross out the list after you posted there. [0] https://pad.puscii.nl/p/issue5promo -------8k-------{ Cut here! }-------8k-------{ Cut here! }-------8k------- Subject: New issue -- Journal of Peer Production #5: Shared Machine Shops ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ┛┏━┃┃ ┃┏━┃┏━ ┏━┃┃ ┏━┃┏━┛ ┏━┃┏━┛┏━┛┏━┃ ┏━┃┏━┃┏━┃┏━ ┃ ┃┏━┛━┏┛┛┏━┃┏━ ┏━┛ ┃┃ ┃┃ ┃┏┏┛┃ ┃┏━┃┃ ┃ ┃┏━┛ ┏━┛┏━┛┏━┛┏┏┛ ┏━┛┏┏┛┃ ┃┃ ┃┃ ┃┃ ┃ ┃┃ ┃┃ ┃ ━━┃ ━┛━━┛━━┛┛ ┛┛ ┛┛ ┛━━┛ ━━┛┛ ┛ ━━┛━━┛┛ ┛ ┛ ┛ ┛━━┛━━ ━━┛━━┛ ┛ ┛━━┛┛ ┛ ━━┛ ***************************************************************************** ░█▀▀░█░█░█▀█░█▀▄░█▀▀░█▀▄░░░█▄█░█▀█░█▀▀░█░█░▀█▀░█▀█░█▀▀░░░█▀▀░█░█░█▀█░█▀█░█▀▀░ ░▀▀█░█▀█░█▀█░█▀▄░█▀▀░█░█░░░█░█░█▀█░█░░░█▀█░░█░░█░█░█▀▀░░░▀▀█░█▀█░█░█░█▀▀░▀▀█░ ░▀▀▀░▀░▀░▀░▀░▀░▀░▀▀▀░▀▀░░░░▀░▀░▀░▀░▀▀▀░▀░▀░▀▀▀░▀░▀░▀▀▀░░░▀▀▀░▀░▀░▀▀▀░▀░░░▀▀▀░ ***************************************************************************** ===> Journal of Peer Production #5: Shared Machine Shops -- out now! <=== .oO{ http://peerproduction.net/ }Oo. \\ Release: 2014-10-31 // .Public domain!. <*> +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ * Editing: + Maxigas Universitat Oberta de Catalunya + Peter Troxler International Fab Lab Association Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Despite the marketing clangour of the “maker movement”, shared machine shops are currently “fringe phenomena” since they play a minor role in the production of wealth, knowledge, political consensus and the social organisation of life. Interestingly, however, they also prominently share the core transformations experienced in contemporary capitalism. The convergence of work, labour and other aspects of life -- the rapid development of algorithmically driven technical systems and their intensifying role in social organisation -- the practical and legitimation crisis of institutions, echoed by renewed attempts at self-organisation. Each article in this special issue addresses a received truth which circulates unreflected amongst both academics analysing these phenomena and practitioners engaged in the respective scenes. Questioning such myths based on empirical research founded on a rigorous theoretical framework is what a journal such as the Journal of Peer Production can contribute to both academic and activist discourses. Shared machine shops have been around for at least a decade or so, which makes for a good time to evaluate how they live up to their self-professed social missions. Here is an executive summary: * Shared Machine Shops are not new. * Fab Labs are not about technology. * Sharing is not happening. * Hackerspaces are not open. * Technology is not neutral. * Hackerspaces are not solving problems. * Fab Labs are not the seeds of a revolution. +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ #=================================+ # T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S | #=================================+ # #-------------------+ # EDITORIAL SECTION | #-------------------+ # # * We Now have the Means of Production, but Where is my Revolution? # by maxigas and Peter Troxler # # * Digitally-Operated Atoms vs. Bits of Rhetoric # by Ursula Gastfall, Thomas Fourmond, Jean-Baptiste Labrune and Peter Troxler # # * Critical Notions of Technology: Promises of Empowerment in Shared Machine Shops # by Susana Nascimento # # * Distributed and Open Creation Platforms as Key Enablers for Smarter Cities # by Tomas Diez # # * Fab Labs Forked: A Grassroots Insurgency inside the Next Industrial Revolution # by Peter Troxler # # * Cultural Stratigraphy: A Rift between Shared Machine Shops # by maxigas # #----------------------+ # PEER REVIEWED PAPERS | #----------------------+ # # * Technology Networks for socially useful production # by Adrian Smith # # * The Story of MIT-Fablab Norway: Community Embedding of Peer Production # by Cindy Kohtala and Camille Bosqué # # * Sharing is Sparing: Open Knowledge Sharing in Fab Labs # by Patricia Wolf, Peter Troxler, Pierre-Yves Kocher, Julie Harboe & Urs Gaudenz # # * Feminist Hackerspaces: The Synthesis of Feminist and Hacker Cultures # by Sophie Toupin # # * Beyond Technological Fundamentalism: Peruvian Hack Labs # and “Inter-technological” Education # by Anita Say Chan [html] [pdf] # # * Becoming Makers: Hackerspace Member Habits, Values, and Identities # by Austin Toombs, Shaowen Bardzell, and Jeffrey Bardzell # # * Shared Machine Shops as Real-life Laboratories # by Sascha Dickel, Jan-Peter Ferdinand, and Ulrich Petschow # # ... Respect for all the contributors, peer reviewers, and readers! ... # v ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ RELEASE PARTY at FSCONS 2014 Free Society Conference and Nordic Summit 2014-10-31 20:00, Renströmsgatan 6, Göteburg, Sweden Join us at http://irc.indymedia.org #jopp channel !!!

3 7

pingbacks
by maxigas 01 Nov '14

01 Nov '14

hi, on the admin interface i see pingbacks, but they don't appear on the website as far as i see. they are also approved. on the page, "Allow trackbacks and pingbacks on this page" is turned on. any ideas how to make them visible? -- maxigas, kiberpunk FA00 8129 13E9 2617 C614 0901 7879 63BC 287E D166 http://research.metatron.ai/ When capitalism started it wasn’t legal.

3 2