April 2019 - JoPP-Public - lists.ourproject.org

Proposal for JoPP #14
by how＠zoethical.com 28 Aug '19

28 Aug '19

Since nobody posted for a month, and following up with our recent publication with the Journal of Peer Production #11 on Singular Technologies & the Third-TechnoScape[0], we’d like to propose a topic for JoPP #14 on Resistance & Transition. The topic would put in perspective what is resistance, why resist, and resisting to what? as well as the seemingly consensual concept of transition. If you are interested in pursuing this line of thought, we’d be happy to produce a CFP within the next week, and propose a work platform to sustain collaborative inquiry over the next two years up until the publication of JoPP #14. Regards, == hk for Petites Singularités [0]: https://ps.zoethical.com/t/singular-technologies-the-third-technoscape/333

3 6

typo
by maxigas 06 May '19

06 May '19

hello jopp, can someone correct a typo or explain me how to do it? this is not the first report i get about it. i guess no challenge to scholarly integrity if we make the article a little better. http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-2/peer-reviewed-papers/hacklabs-and-… Part 3, 8th paragraph, second sentence, second word, should be "started" instead of "stated". In context: "L0pht stated in 1992 in the Boston area as a membership based club" should be "L0pht started in 1992 in the Boston area as a membership based club". thanks and happy hacking, -- Maxigas, kiberpunk FA00 8129 13E9 2617 C614 0901 7879 63BC 287E D166 Lecturer in Critical Digital Media Practice Centre for Science Studies Department of Sociology Lancaster University https://relay70.metatron.ai/ Unix is a Registered Bell of AT&T Trademark Laboratories. - Donn Seeley O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org

2 2

Chapter on peer learning
by Mathieu O'Neil 18 Apr '19

18 Apr '19

Hi all Apologies for spamming the list but we have had another defection for our edited volume on peer production. This time its about peer learning / education. If you feel like this is something you might want to consider, and would like more info (or know someone who might be available and interested), please contact me or Sophie offlist. Thanks, Mathieu

1 0

Urgent- chapter on Makers
by Mathieu O'Neil 05 Apr '19

05 Apr '19

Hi all As some of you already know, together with Sophie Toupin and Christian Pentzold I am editing an anthology on peer production. This project is already quite advanced however the person who was writing the chapters on Makers has suddenly pulled out and we need to organise a replacement. If anyone on this list has the requisite expertise and would like to find out more about the project please contact myself or Sophie off-list so we can provide more information. cheers Mathieu

1 1

JoPP #14 CFP
by Mathieu O'Neil 05 Apr '19

05 Apr '19

Hi all This CFP is on the frontpage but has not been posted to the list so here goes. Not sure where else it has been circulated yet. I can post to ACS, ICTS, Fibreculture. cheers Mathieu =-=-=-=-= JOPP ISSUE #14: INFRASTRUCTURING THE COMMONS TODAY, WHEN STS MEETS ICT EDITORS Mariacristina Sciannamblo, Madeira Interactive Technologies Institute Maurizio Teli, Aalborg University Peter Lyle, Madeira Interactive Technologies Institute Christopher Csíkszentmihályi SUMMARY Peer production and collaborative forms of technological design – such as those based on commons-oriented approaches – have at their core a critical stance towards the technoscientific landscape, an approach shared with Science and Technology Studies (STS) as a theoretical archipelago that has produced a significant wealth of knowledge that points out the social constructive and performative character of technoscience. In recent time, the increasing prominence of critical approaches – e.g. feminist and postcolonial STS – and the intersections with surrounding fields – e.g. participatory design, information science, and critical technical practice – have stressed the politically engaged character of STS, emphasizing its “activist interest” (Sismondo, 2008). Such growing interest in collaborative modes of practicing STS has suggested the emergence of a “collaborative turn” in STS (Farías, 2017). Such novel approaches allow researchers and practitioners to understand and experience STS as a “practice” as well as a theoretical perspective, an approach that can be fruitful and inspiring also to investigate, design, and advocate for commons-based and oriented forms of production and experiences. This special issue focuses on such collaborative orientation of STS by exploring its interplay with the field of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) when focusing on the commons and peer production. This relationship entails diverse forms of meeting such as the disciplinary intersection of STS with design studies and information science; the epistemological meeting between STS and critical perspectives; the making of new alliances between researchers, activists and local population; the convergence of institutional interests and research practices to promote alternative sociotechnical infrastructures based on the commons. At the same time such hybrid collaborations pose novel and interesting challenges such as the institutional constraints in the form of disciplinary boundaries that persist in today’s academia and the demand to engage in unconventional ways of publishing that are mostly disregarded by current evaluation practices. This call seeks interdisciplinary contributions that explore the politics in and of the relationship between STS and ICT, from experiences of local and commons activism to large-scale examples of alternative sociotechnical infrastructures. Topics relevant for this call may include: * ICT, labor, and precariousness * Hacktivism, community networks, and alternative Internet * Datification and alternative data politics * Post-colonial and anti-colonial computing * Feminist interventions in ICT * Commons, peer production, and platform cooperativism * Interplay between publics, researchers, and institutions e.g. citizen science * Interventionist methodologies This special issue aims to fostering interdisciplinary encounters in order to foster the politically engaged, commons-oriented, STS agenda in the relationship with ICT. IMPORTANT DATES 15 March 2019: Submission of a 250-500 words abstract 30 March 2019: Notification of relevance 1 July 2019: Submission of full papers 15 October 2019: Reviews to authors 15 December 2019: Submission of revised papers March 2020: Foreseen publication SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS Abstracts should be of 250-500 words, while peer reviewed papers should be no more than 8,000 words. These should be sent directly to the editors at infrastructingcommons(a)peerproduction.net All peer reviewed papers will be reviewed according to Journal of Peer Production guidelines. See http://peerproduction.net/peer-review/process/ for details. =-=-=

3 8

Sustainability of JoPP
by Mathieu O'Neil 04 Apr '19

04 Apr '19

Hi all Since I inadvertently broadcast my intention to post about this issue I guess I should do it... I want to start by copying my answers and that of the editors of ephemera to the OA editor questionnaire we just published in jopp #13. In some ways ephemera is one of the closest to jopp in that they are volunteers and have a very low (or no) budget. Others were similar but for some reason the ephemera eds' answers resonated with me. @Ekaterina and Chris: FYI. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 7. What are the most challenging aspects of running an open-access journal? Chris Giotitsas (ephemera) Decision-making and coordination of a large group of people scattered across the world (that are otherwise very busy and receive no remuneration) in the complex operations required to produce a high-quality journal with virtually no budget. This inadvertently leads to delays, occasionally, as well as some missed opportunities. Ekaterina Chertkovskaya (ephemera) Timely publication of solid issues requires a lot of commitment and concerted effort of the editorial collective’s members, who are located in different parts of the world. Physical distance also makes it difficult to implement changes and make important decisions fast. The focus on smooth running of the journal sometimes distracts from broader – political and intellectual – vision. So finding a balance is a big challenge. Passing the knowledge to new members of the collective, especially when it comes to production tasks and procedures of ephemera, is another important but challenging task, ensuring there is a continuity in the journal even when members leave. Finally, despite working on a voluntary basis and running on a very low budget, we still have some costs, like maintaining and upgrading the website. We had a model where people could support us by subscribing to our issues in print, but this has proved to be costly to maintain and we’re now again going completely online. Mathieu O’Neil (Journal of Peer Production) Issues such as the sustainability of the technical and organisational infrastructure derive from the distributed nature of the editing process (see next section). The JoPP website was originally hosted by friendly organisations such as Oekonux and the P2P Foundation; it is now supported and maintained by Peter Troxler, a member of our editorial collective. JoPP is a completely DIY project which mainly exists without money (exceptions include funding to support printing the ‘Book of Peer Production’ project). We rely on the goodwill of individual volunteers so all tasks not directly related to editing and releasing an issue – whether organising technical backup plans, getting indexed in SCOPUS, etc. – depend on whether people have the time and energy to take them on. 8. How do you overcome these challenges (if you can overcome them)? Chris Giotitsas (ephemera) Through unique and ever-adapting mechanisms of collaboration assisted by various web tools. A highly developed sense of community and belief in the importance of the journal’s work are also important. Ekaterina Chertkovskaya (ephemera) To make sure the knowledge stays within collective and it is easy to integrate new members, we have created various rotating roles that people fill in, usually in little teams (e.g. layout, web, cover, managing editors), as well as various templates and guidelines on how we do things. We have developed a production process where each issue goes through the so-called ‘double-checking’ stages for formatting and layout, which aim to ensure the journal is published in a particular format and intellectual quality is not compromised by, say, poor or inconsistent formatting. Here we tried to create a process that is clear and not too complicated. Finally, some of our quarterly meetings are now devoted to longer-term vision for the journal, and we try to take more production issues in online spaces. Mathieu O’Neil (Journal of Peer Production) We adopted early on the principle of rotating themed issues between groups of editors. This is a good way to bring in new people who can contribute their own unique interests. However this in turn raises issues, such as the heavy burden on issue editors who take on all aspects of production, from finding and chasing up authors and reviewers, to copy-editing, layout and web formatting (some have obtained grants locally and hired RAs to do some of this work). The distributed issue structure also means no long-term allocation of roles has been achieved, beyond the essential functions of website maintenance (Peter) and issue planning (Mathieu). JoPP’s transparent system does have its benefits: reviewers may be motivated to produce excellent work because their reviews will be published in any case, and non-anonymously if they so choose. We can also rely on our public and archived mailing list, which has around 120 subscribers, to bring in new suggestions or come up with solutions to problems if the need arises. http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-13-open/open-access-bouillabaisse/te… =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- So the above made me realise a couple of things that had been percolating for a while. I'm not forgetting that we also discussed a few months ago whether the project might not end, but then Maurizio and Peter stepped up to propose #14 and #15 so we're alive until then, I guess. Our distributed structure does mean each issue of jopp has a really strong and unique focus and identity coming from editors bringing in their ideas and networks and that is great. But the downside is that overarching structures are really undeveloped. I'm not suggesting we have rotating roles as outlined by Ekaterina above. But I think we need to at least have a discussion about what could make the project more resilient (it might also be worth looking at the report on Open Community Health in jopp#13 but it seems to me that that applies more to much larger projects). Previous attempts along those lines have failed to elicit much enthusiasm. I successfully applied to get us listed in DOAJ a year or so ago but there are probably more things that could be done to make us (a) more resilient and (b) more attractive. On the latter: getting a DOI for ex. is relatively uncontroversial (no idea how to do that but at the very least it would be time-consuming); whereas getting indexed in SCOPUS (and thus counted in some university metrics systems) of courses raises ethical issues (Elsevier), plus we may not even qualify (not sure we meet the rate of publication threshold). In terms of resilience as a first step I think at the very least we really need to strengthen our resistance to unexpected events. It is really risky that only two people basically run our infrastructure: what would happen if I or Peter had an accident, or fell seriously ill, etc for example? Which is why I suggested backup people for the list and for the CMS. As for the servers, another critical infrastructure, we also need a backup plan but I can't really speak to that. @Peter: any thoughts on what could be done in this respect? cheers Mathieu

1 1