[JoPP-Public] Proposal for the evolution of jopp

[Mathieu O'Neil]

Hi George

I would be interested to hear other people's opinions as well but I guess everyone is busy and worried at the moment...? We could invoke "lazy consensus" - if no-one objects by a certain time, then the proposal is adopted. However that does seem a bit hypocritical as it could be that no-one is interested. ;-]

To sum up - we have had public support for the move to a new editorial format from you and Steve (on jopp-public) and from Kat, Maurizio and me (on jopp-ed); Peter has indicated he will help with the transition away from the Wordpress CMS (on jopp-ed). So, while it would be nice to have wider public support, it seems like we have a group of people who are willing to do something.

Of course we should wait longer before deciding anything.

cheers,
Mathieu

________________________________
From: JoPP-Public <jopp-public-bounces at lists.ourproject.org> on behalf of george dafermos <georgedafermos at gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 22:15
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



On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 2:39 AM Mathieu O'Neil <mathieu.oneil at anu.edu.au<mailto: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<mailto:jopp-public-bounces at lists.ourproject.org>> on behalf of george dafermos <georgedafermos at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/20200501/da96af8b/attachment-0001.html>