Hi all Forwarding for Zack... cheers Mathieu PS. I think the coordination discussions are interesting not just instrumentally but also as a sort of putting into practice some values around openness and fair debate but that's just me. For the record, not all this has been discussed before in this exact way and I was not trying to preempt debate by invoking superior knowledge of past issues (and not saying thats what Zack was saying either - just clarifying). We had a (short-lived) 'technical' list in the days when we were hosted by Oekonux, its certainly an option. cheers Mathieu ________________________________ From: Stefano Zacchiroli <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2016 1:09 To: Mathieu ONeil Subject: Re: [JoPP-Public] JoPP journal #9 [ Off-list followup, as you might have discussed this in the past already. But feel free to reply on list, or even forward my mail there, if you think my suggestion is useful. ] On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 01:07:59PM +0000, Mathieu ONeil wrote:
Opening all articles to comments would probably require moderation, a time-consuming activity. So, what I'm trying to say is that genuine, substantial discussion should of course be encouraged but that there needs to be mechanisms for this discussion to be freely agreed to by both sides - not imposed.
I agree with this. At the same time, it seems to me that the main (or maybe even the only) usage of the jopp-public list thus far has been *coordination* among the members of the editorial board, to organize the issue preparation work, or otherwise maintain the infrastructure that is needed to run the journal. A discussion venue for that is very much needed, but I understand that people who just want to discuss the *topics* covered by specific JoPP issues or articles might be put off by coordination discussions. So maybe what we need is just *another*, different mailing lists, whose purpose is to discuss the topics covered by released issues of JoPP? Just an idea, Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . [email protected] . upsilon.cc/zack . . o . . . o . o Computer Science Professor . CTO Software Heritage . . . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . OSI Board Director . . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Dear Mathieu, many thanks for this forwarding. But i don't understand, why you have to do it. Stefano can send his message directly to the list and not act in a hidden space. We have to seperate something. Your selection of text Your coordination of journal processing The readers activity Only the 3. point is important for me. The readers have an free access to the text. The discussion of this text have to be also in a free space and not closed in a mail list with special subscription needs or any form of discussion moderation like censorship. greetings, willi Asuncion, Paraguay 2016-10-29 11:20 GMT-03:00 Mathieu ONeil <[email protected]>:
Hi all
Forwarding for Zack...
cheers Mathieu
PS. I think the coordination discussions are interesting not just instrumentally but also as a sort of putting into practice some values around openness and fair debate but that's just me. For the record, not all this has been discussed before in this exact way and I was not trying to preempt debate by invoking superior knowledge of past issues (and not saying thats what Zack was saying either - just clarifying). We had a (short-lived) 'technical' list in the days when we were hosted by Oekonux, its certainly an option.
cheers Mathieu
________________________________ From: Stefano Zacchiroli <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2016 1:09 To: Mathieu ONeil Subject: Re: [JoPP-Public] JoPP journal #9
[ Off-list followup, as you might have discussed this in the past already. But feel free to reply on list, or even forward my mail there, if you think my suggestion is useful. ]
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 01:07:59PM +0000, Mathieu ONeil wrote:
Opening all articles to comments would probably require moderation, a time-consuming activity. So, what I'm trying to say is that genuine, substantial discussion should of course be encouraged but that there needs to be mechanisms for this discussion to be freely agreed to by both sides - not imposed.
I agree with this.
At the same time, it seems to me that the main (or maybe even the only) usage of the jopp-public list thus far has been *coordination* among the members of the editorial board, to organize the issue preparation work, or otherwise maintain the infrastructure that is needed to run the journal. A discussion venue for that is very much needed, but I understand that people who just want to discuss the *topics* covered by specific JoPP issues or articles might be put off by coordination discussions.
So maybe what we need is just *another*, different mailing lists, whose purpose is to discuss the topics covered by released issues of JoPP?
Just an idea, Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . [email protected] . upsilon.cc/zack . . o . . . o . o Computer Science Professor . CTO Software Heritage . . . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . OSI Board Director . . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
_______________________________________________ JoPP-Public mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public
participants (2)
-
Mathieu ONeil -
willi uebelherr