[JoPP-Public] Proposal for the evolution of jopp

Thu May 21 10:42:03 CEST 2020

Hi all,

I'd like to second the excellent idea of a CfP for #15: Transition.

>From Panos: "It would be nice to have a format that brings closer together
more
theoretical with more practical work. For example, publishing a
theoretical paper and its "translation" to a policy recommendations
document *together* by a theorist and a policy expert respectively, who
would need to collaborate for this."

This is a really good suggestion. As you've said, Panos, we've
experimented with alternative formats in a few different ways, for example
in Issue #12 Shared Machine Shops (practitioner contributions) and in the
City and Alternative Internets you mention - and there are other models
like that of ACM Interactions that offer similarly interesting routes
forward:
https://interactions.acm.org/responding-to-the-covid-19-pandemic-an-invitation
I'd
love to see this continue with the Journal.

I'm not able to commit to helping edit the issue at this time, but I would
like to offer to help in other ways, for example thinking through
alternative formats, so please let me know where I can support.

Best,
Kat

--------------------->>> ☾
Dr. Kat Braybrooke @codekat <https://twitter.com/codekat>
Research Fellow, CreaTures <http://creatures-eu.org>, University of Sussex
Visiting Researcher, DDH <https://www.kcl.ac.uk/ddh>, King's College London

On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 02:48, Mathieu O'Neil <mathieu.oneil at anu.edu.au>
wrote:

> Hi Panos, all
>
> I'm afraid there hasn't been much activity on jopp-ed for the last couple
> of weeks. So we have not made any progress re evolution debate.
>
> There is however progress to report on the upcoming issue #14 which is
> coordinated by Maurizio and colleagues. Some tech difficulties were
> resolved with Peter's help (thanks Peter!) and my understanding is an
> announcement on the release is imminent.
>
> Perhaps we should seize the opportunity presented by this release, which
> reminds people that there is a jopp, to send out shortly after a CFP for
> jopp #15 TRANSITION?
>
> This would allow us to show that the journal is still moving forward and
> potentially connect with new people as suggested by Panos. We could also
> use it to hint at our upcoming evolution.
>
> I'm happy to co-ordinate this issue. But I can't do it alone.
> @Panos: would you care to join? :-)
> @everyone else: let me know if interested, either on this list or
> privately.
>
> cheers
> Mathieu
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* JoPP-Public <jopp-public-bounces at lists.ourproject.org> on behalf
> of Mathieu O'Neil <mathieu.oneil at anu.edu.au>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 5, 2020 16:13
> *To:* jopp-public at lists.ourproject.org <jopp-public at lists.ourproject.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [JoPP-Public] Proposal for the evolution of jopp
>
> Hi Panos, all
>
> Thanks for this stimulating contribution to our debates! The proposal I
> put forward had a place for experimental formats. It also enables the kind
> of cross-fertilisation between scientific and policy-oriented authors that
> you call for (provided such individuals exist, and are amenable to working
> together ;-)).
>
> When thinking about it, perhaps it boils down to: why are we doing this?
>
> At this point in time I don't think there is anything more important than
> amplifying concrete change, so the policy aspect is central. Of course
> that's just me. So whilst I proposed and still support a "Transition"
> issue, I would not want it to overly delay the emergence of a new format.
> But I agree that it could be a nice way to signal our evolution and also
> bring new people in, if we can somehow work on that at the same time as
> prepare for the new format?
>
> cheers
> Mathieu
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* JoPP-Public <jopp-public-bounces at lists.ourproject.org> on behalf
> of panayotis antoniadis <panayotis at nethood.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 5, 2020 10:04
> *To:* jopp-public at lists.ourproject.org <jopp-public at lists.ourproject.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [JoPP-Public] Proposal for the evolution of jopp
>
>
> Dear Mathieu,
>
> Thanks for all your efforts!
>
> Personally I would love to see JoPP becoming more experimental and more
> meaningful regarding the urgent challenges that lie ahead.
>
> In the two issues that I have helped to edit, CITY and ALTERNATIVE
> INTERNETS, we had a special "experimental" section where different types
> of formats were encouraged and I think there is a lot of potential in
> this direction.
>
> But still, I think that having the different formats "separate" (a
> section of peer-reviewed articles, a section on policy recommendations,
> etc)., as a juxtaposition, does not work very well.
>
> It would be nice to have a format that brings closer together more
> theoretical with more practical work. For example, publishing a
> theoretical paper and its "translation" to a policy recommendations
> document *together* by a theorist and a policy expert respectively, who
> would need to collaborate for this.
>
> It would be also nice to see more work that builds on the idea of
> "creative commons" where "content" is more important than "authorship".
> E.g., a paper where someone performs a creative collage of pieces
> written by different authors on the same topic.
>
> I am just brainstorming, in case it helps. I am sure there are many
> ideas. But no matter how good the idea it will not work if it is not
> supported by the "community".
>
> So, I would vote for a TRANSITION issue, before any decision, that
> encourages experimental formats and "meta-" pieces with elaborate
> arguments about how a progressive journal on peer production should look
> like. It could also include invited works by people that are not today
> part of the community but we believe that they would help to make the
> desired "opening".
>
> My 2 cents :-)
>
> Panos.
>
>
>
>
> On 27.04.20 10:45, Mathieu O'Neil wrote:
> > Hi all
> >
> > Recently members of the jopp editorial board have been debating on
> > jopp-editorial how best to continue the work of the journal. It is now
> > time to move this discussion to jopp-public. There are two main points
> > to resolve.
> >
> > First, jopp needs to move away from the WordPress CMS, which is
> > becoming unmanageable, to a html site. The most logical move would be
> > to include only PDFs of articles so that the only publishing work to
> > be done for an issue would to (a) upload the PDFs, and (b) build an
> > index page. Peter who has done a great job managing the CMS and
> > protecting it from hostile intrusions for quite a few years now
> > (thanks Peter for all your work!) will assist in the transition to a
> > new format, time permitting, and will then hand over the day-to-day
> > management to new people, including - but not limited to - Steve.
> > I will create a separate thread to discuss options. Please use it to
> > discuss website-related issues.
> >
> > Second, the “themed issue” format is also onerous and needs to be
> > revisited. Before detailing my proposal for how jopp could evolve into
> > the future, I am reproducing relevant parts of the jopp-editorial list
> > discussion.
> >
> > 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 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Maurizio said: I was also inspired by ACM Interactions - in particular
> > in the way they have engaged in rethinking the format of submissions
> > to adjust to current times. My feeling is that Mathieu suggestion is
> > solid, and a transition or post issue discussed with the public
> > mailing list feels
> > like necessary.
> >
> > [end jopp-editorial discussion]
> >
> > I now expand on the proposal outlined above for the possible evolution
> > of the Journal of Peer Production.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > In the most general terms, peer producers are people who create and
> > manage common-pool resources together. It sometimes seems as if “peer
> > production” and “digital commons” can be used interchangeably. Digital
> > commons are non-rivalrous (they can be reproduced at little or no
> > cost) and non-excludable (no-one can prevent others from using them,
> > through property rights for example). Practically speaking,
> > proprietary objects could be produced by equal “peers,” however peer
> > production has a normative dimension, so that what chiefly
> > characterizes this mode of production is  that  “the  output  is
> >  orientated  towards  the  further  expansion of the commons; while
> > the commons, recursively, is the chief resource in this mode of
> > production” (Söderberg & O'Neil, 2014, p. 2).
> >
> > The Journal of Peer Production has tracked the evolution of peer
> > production from open knowledge to open design and manufacturing. It
> > approaches its ten-year anniversary in the time of the global
> > pandemic, and of the continuing environmental crisis. The impacts of
> > Covid-19 are profound, but will not last forever, though local
> > infection pools may subsist in poorer countries for much longer than
> > in the Global North. In contrast, the environmental crisis is here to
> > stay. Significant social change is required to stave off climate
> > destruction, and peer production principles such as cooperation and
> > trust, transparency in production, collective democratic
> > decision-making, etc., can usefully contribute to necessary processes
> > of “relocalization” and “degrowth”.*
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > The journal structure could be (random examples and ordering):
> >
> > jopp issue #... (1,2)
> > or [to mark the evolution:]
> > jopp Vol [1] or [2021] (1,2)
> >
> > Editorial notes
> >
> > Peer-reviewed section
> > 1-peer-reviewed article
> > 2- peer-reviewed article
> >
> > Policy section
> > 3-Policy proposal: tax incentives for non-profits and cooperatives?
> > 4-Policy proposal: pros and cons of Universal Basic Income vs free
> > public services?
> >
> > How-to section
> > 5-Guide: requirements for organising community beehives?
> > 6-Guide: requirements for organising local mesh networks?
> >
> > Invited comments / art section
> > 7-article
> > 8-intervention
> >
> > For peer review, we already get the occasional unsolicited article
> > subs + varia subs. We can send out generic CFPs for all sections. And,
> > we can also have shorter themed sections if people still want to do them.
> >
> > Possibly each section could have a couple of editors who could oversee
> > one or two sections each. I'd be happy to oversee peer-review and
> > policy; there can be a rotation.
> >
> > The advantage of this model is that we only really need to have two
> > (out of eight possible) items to release a small-size issue. So that’s
> > why I think we can commit to two issues a year… maybe?
> >
> > As seen above, several members of the editorial board have expressed
> > support for the outline of this new format.
> >
> > So, now seeking input from the broader jopp community: what do you
> > think? Any suggestions, objections, observations?
> >
> > cheers,
> > Mathieu
> >
> > PS. Once again – please use the parallel thread for technical website
> > issues – thanks!
> >
> >
> > *The following is an excerpt from the final chapter of the forthcoming
> > Handbook of Peer Production, “Be Your Own Peer! Principles and
> > Policies for the Commons” (O’Neil, Toupin, Pentzold):
> >
> > The governance of peer produced projects, one of the central aspects
> > of the studies of peer production, aspires to the self-regulation of
> > participants in autonomous collectives. This governance raises the
> > broader issue of political sovereignty. The appeal of self-governance
> > for peer production participants can perhaps be explained by the
> > amount of strategic control most citizens in liberal democracies have
> > over their lives and environment. This control has been drastically
> > reduced by unaccountable global actors – e.g. financial markets,
> > extractive industrial interests, supranational trade agreements, and
> > the list goes on – who influence and constrain the policy options of
> > notionally democratic nation-states. In the early 2020s, racist
> > nativism and authoritarianism are being embraced by some people in
> > reaction to the failures of export-oriented, deregulated, and
> > globalized neoliberalism. A way out of this political crisis is linked
> > to a solution to the environmental crisis: we must head toward more
> > democracy by relocalizing or deglobalizing, and towards more
> > sustainability by degrowing, our economies.
> >
> > As engaged researchers, we believe the Handbook of Peer Production
> > needs to offer a response, however modest, to these political and
> > ecological challenges. Addressing the macro-economic aspects of
> > “deglobalization” would lead us far away from peer production, towards
> > issues which would probably require a Handbook of their own.
> >  Accordingly, we focus here on relocalization as it relates to
> > degrowth (décroissance), the downscaling of over-production and
> > over-consumption (Kiallis, 2019; Latouche, 2006). In a nutshell:
> > unlimited growth and consumption are not sustainable, so we need more
> > access to free public services, a shorter work week, and a turn
> > towards climate-friendly industries. In this context, Stefania Barca
> > (2019) suggests that the one question that matters is that posed by
> > self-governing workers: “should surplus value be reinvested in
> > production, or not”? Yet since only a handful of firms and industrial
> > sectors are run following so-called “holacratic” (i.e., communal or
> > participatory) principles, degrowth must – in a first stage at least –
> > be deployed in a piecemeal, hybrid manner.
> >
> > In the context of discussing the cooperative sector, Gibson-Graham
> > (2003) suggest that if we perceive economic relations as already
> > plural, then the revolutionary “project of replacement” can be
> > modified into one of “strengthening already existing non-capitalist
> > economic processes and building new non-capitalist enterprises,” of
> > establishing “communal subjects” (p. 157). Several chapters in the
> > Handbook of Peer Production (see Braybrooke & Smith; O’Neil & Broca;
> > Pazaitis & Drechsler, this volume) have discussed ways in which this
> > “strengthening” has begun to occur at the municipal level. However, as
> > noted by Adrian Smith (2014) in his account of London’s early-1980s
> > Technology Networks (community-based workshops which provided open
> > access to shared machine tools, technical advice, and prototyping
> > services), a “key lesson from this history is that “radical
> > aspirations invested in workshops, such as democratizing technology,
> > will need to connect to wider social mobilizations capable of bringing
> > about reinforcing political, economic and institutional change”
> > (Smith, 2014, online). In other words, the ecology around peer
> > production must be nurtured. Further, adopting strictly local settings
> > leaves the public policy terrain open to neoliberal and/or reactionary
> > perspectives.
> >
> > References
> >
> > Barca, S. (2019) The labor(s) of degrowth. Capitalism Nature
> > Socialism, 30(2), 207–216.
> >
> > Gibson-Graham, J.K. (2003). Enabling ethical economies: Cooperativism
> > and class. Critical Sociology. 29(2): 123-164.
> >
> > Kallis, G. (2019) Socialism without growth. Capitalism Nature
> > Socialism, 30(2): 189-206.
> >
> > Latouche, S. (2006) The globe downshifted. Le monde diplomatique.
> January.
> > https://mondediplo.com/2006/01/13degrowth
> >
> > Smith, A. (2014) Technology Networks for socially useful production.
> > Journal of Peer Production, 5: Shared Machine Shops.
> >
> http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-5-shared-machine-shops/peer-reviewed-articles/technology-networks-for-socially-useful-production/
> >
> > Söderberg, J., & O’Neil, M. (2014). Introduction. In: Söderberg, J., &
> > Maxigas (Eds.), Book of Peer Production (pp. 2-3). Göteborg: NSU
> > Press. http://peerproduction.net/projects/books/book-of-peer-production/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > JoPP-Public mailing list
> > JoPP-Public at lists.ourproject.org
> > https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> JoPP-Public mailing list
> JoPP-Public at lists.ourproject.org
> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200521/979579a6/attachment-0001.html>