[JoPP-Public] Proposal for the evolution of jopp

Thu Apr 30 14:15:13 CEST 2020

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 2:39 AM Mathieu O'Neil <mathieu.oneil at anu.edu.au>
wrote:

> Hi George, all
>
> I agree that my first formulation in the jopp-ed discussion was not great
> (newsletter, etc) but I did not want to mess with what had been said. So
> yes its probably not our role to provide up-to-the minute updates on events
> and news.
>
>
Well, good, I'm glad we cleared that up :-)

> Re policy, interesting that your bring up jopp #7. I looked at some of
> these articles recently, for example the one you wrote with others on
> electricity microgrids. My impression was that this was a mix of a
> scientific article and a policy document, in other words it was perhaps too
> dense for a non-specialised audience.
>
> I've never worked for a think tank. I've co-authored a couple of
> submissions to parliamentary inquiries on digital literacy and
> misinformation. So, my impression of policy docs (I could be wrong) is that
> they should be relatively short and easy to understand. I'd like to get
> better at formulating policy proposals that make some economic sense and
> are progressive. I'm under no illusions about how large political
> bureaucracies operate but I think if we can produce some policy templates
> that can be used and improved in different contexts that could be quite
> useful.
>
> I like your conclusion: why not try?
> Yes - what's the worse that can happen? :-)
>
>
OK then :-) In any case, I would be very interested to hear how other
members of the editorial board feel about it...

-G.

> cheers
> Mathieu
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* JoPP-Public <jopp-public-bounces at lists.ourproject.org> on behalf
> of george dafermos <georgedafermos at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 28, 2020 1:02
> *To:* Journal of Peer Production's general and public list <
> jopp-public at lists.ourproject.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [JoPP-Public] Proposal for the evolution of jopp
>
> Hi all,
>
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 11:49 AM Mathieu O'Neil <mathieu.oneil at anu.edu.au>
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Peter said: I was wondering if building a “rolling issue” that would
> collect relevant work over a period of some months or even years with
> publication of individual articles when reviewed and ready could become an
> alternative model for jopp to publish contributions for certain topics.
>
> Mathieu said: I've never really cared for the rolling article model that
> tripleC for example uses - too loose, no sense of a journal, of a
> structure. At the same time it is clear that the current model is not
> sustainable right now.
>
>
> I agree, this is probably the main disadvantage of the rolling model
> compared to the themed issue format...
>
>
>
> I have been thinking anyway: doing a purely academic/scientific journal is
> not what we need right now. Jopp was born at Oekonux and it has always had
> a political / activist aim as well as a scientific one. We have established
> a body of work, time to do something with it.
>
> So I want to propose a move to "jopp Vol. 2" where we release 2 or 4 times
> a year a shorter issue, with a newsletter, political news about the
> commons, practical-legal-political advice on building commons
> infrastructure, etc as well as one or two peer-reviewed articles. This
> could either happen straight away or after a "POST" or "TRANSITION" issue.
> Interested to know your thoughts. This discussion will need to be moved to
> jopp-public.
>
>
> I am not really fond of turning JoPP into "a newsletter" with "political
> news about the commons" and "practical-legal-political advice on building
> commons infrastructure". Whether we like it or not, the JoPP is not a
> website for people looking for *news* or *advice* (and I wouldn't like to
> turn it into such a website). Rather, its contribution is socially-engaged
> analysis and reflection, that is, food for thought, not news or practical
> advice. Besides, I don't think the JoPP has the capacity to provide
> practical legal or political advice, considering that most of us in the
> editorial group are theorists rather than practitioners...
>
>
>
> Kat said: I think Mathieu's suggestion here is a solid one - one of the
> (many) reasons we've all been attracted to jopp, I think, is the politics
> attached to it - the sense that it, in its own small way, helps us all
> imagine a different way of doing things to that of the status quo. Given
> this, it makes a lot of sense to enable the journal format to evolve with
> the times and the shifting needs of those involved in it.
>
> On this note, I found the reframing of the Interactions ACM magazine
> submissions very inspiring - as they have engaged in exactly this process.
> Take a look here if you've not seen it already:
> https://interactions.acm.org/submissions Perhaps jopp can think though a
> more informal submission structure like this, which while still allowing
> for and welcoming peer-reviewed pieces where applicable, also prioritises
> creative and/or practitioner submissions that are shorter-form, focused on
> pressing issues at hand, and flow freely between digital and print formats.
> This might need to involve a different website structure, which enables
> syndicated blog/short-form posts that can be easily distributed - but I'm
> sure that's doable too, if we all put our tech skills together to assist
> Peter in doing so.
>
>
> I like some of the ideas they're experimenting with: for example, it would
> be interesting to organize *debates* around controversial topics (which is
> something we've actually done in the past: see Issue #1)...But apparently,
> they're not abandoning the "themed issue format" entirely (neither should
> we, in my opinion): two of the main content areas are the "forums" and
> "features", which are basically collections of articles on the same topic.
>
>
> [...]
> My proposal involves (a) adopting a more frequent publication schedule of
> shorter issues divided into sections and (b) articulating the journal with
> a (yet to be created) Commons Policy Council.
>
> [...]
>
> I believe the jopp has a role to play here, which necessitates that it
> expands its work beyond academic research into practical advice to develop
> commons and policy formulation to grow the ecology which supports the
> commons. However a journal is not an appropriate vehicle for addressing
> concrete proposals to entities in the public policy sphere such as
> political parties, governments, unions, and civil society, so another
> institution must be created.
>
> I have some external research grant funding until the end of the year,
> part of which can’t be used because of Covid-19. I am proposing to
> repurpose some of this funding to assist in the creation (website design?
> publication design? what else?) of a “Commons Policy Council” website and
> organisation that would release White Papers and How-to Guides. It could
> also have a “policy tracker” system documenting where commons-oriented
> policy initiatives are being proposed, where they are at, what support they
> need, etc.
>
>
> In this scenario jopp would acquire a new purpose, in addition to its role
> as instigator and disseminator of research into peer production and social
> change: operating as a development site for practical resources, and as a
> laboratory for policy proposals.
>
>
> That's an idea we could surely experiment with (and it's also something
> we've tried in the past, as in Issue #7): as you write below, the policy
> proposals could become one of the "new content areas" of JoPP.
>
>
>
> [...]
> So, now seeking input from the broader jopp community: what do you think?
> Any suggestions, objections, observations?
>
> Well, it could work, so I cannot see any reason why we shouldn't go ahead
> and give it a try :-)
>
> _______________________________________________
> JoPP-Public mailing list
> JoPP-Public at lists.ourproject.org
> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/jopp-public/attachments/20200430/3893e522/attachment.html>