Watched Paywall last night. All through my partner and I were talking about something that seemed not to quite come up .. which is the question of labour .... "the modes of peer production" I guess. Although I think JoPP has dealt with this some in #10. I know this has been a huge issue at FCJ. We've all burned out at some stage with the work (and complete lack of credit even in university workloads .. universities love journals but seem to think journal issues just pop out of the ground by themselves like mushrooms). 

It's also, I have to say, been quite hard to FCJ to make a transition into doing things differently, more in tune with what we see as contemporary events, largely because forces keep pulling us back to traditional forms of credit etc when it comes to the form and process of the work. 

I know other journals and so forth have faced similar issues. 

Among these and other questions (very prevalent throughout Paywall, and certainly in my mind as editor of FCJ since at least 2008 ... the first ERA ranking exercise ...and now with UNSW where I work's own "journal rankings" exercise) ... is the whole politics of infrastructure—reactionary we well know—that has developed around publishing now ... at exactly the same time that OA and much more beyond this in terms of "scholarly comms" has thrived, in what I'm calling a "third media revolution" (most of publishing has become even more stubbornly "second media revolution" that is, the reproduction and distribution of representations, e.g. the printing press but also the like of social media) ... 

So one idea (and I hesitate as I'm beyond time poor) might be a cross many OA venture (as in venture communism) celebration, exploration into the beyond, and also critical evaluation of the contemporary state of whatever-it-is-that-scholarly-comms-is-becoming. This could also be seen as an activist intervention into the state of things, e.g. the politics of scholarly infrastructure, but also, rankings and research organisations especially (think of e.g. Plan S here, although I've recently heard that the "fix is in" on this .. at least in the UK, with Elsevier no less part of the discussions now being undertaken) ... Interventions of commercial consultants, etc. Our entire university is now run via "rankings" etc. Tied of course to the future of the university or whatever-it-it-universities-are-(un)becoming .. then there would be questions about forms of comms and scholarly comms and processes through this; data, media and comms and (to my mind) the almost total lack of understanding of any of these except in the most outmoded and frankly limited way on the part of research organisation and infrastructure high and low , etc etc. 

None of this means that JoPP should continue, if it has served its purpose. Probably just thinking on my feet. And it could go on without it (which sensibly would leave those who have made JoPP work so well with some time of their hands to do other things. As someone who has spent far too much time on an OA journal, to the detriment of my other work, I can say it is sometimes a good idea to let things go).