[JoPP-Public] Fw: JoPP journal #9

[willi uebelherr]

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 <mathieu.oneil at anu.edu.au>:
> 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 <zack at pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr>
> 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 . zack at upsilon.cc . 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
> JoPP-Public at lists.ourproject.org
> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public
>