<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} </style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Hi Panos, all<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
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 ;-)).<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
When thinking about it, perhaps it boils down to: why are we doing this?</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
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?<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
cheers</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Mathieu<br>
</div>
<div>
<div id="appendonsend"></div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font style="font-size:11pt" face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> JoPP-Public <jopp-public-bounces@lists.ourproject.org> on behalf of panayotis antoniadis <panayotis@nethood.org><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 5, 2020 10:04<br>
<b>To:</b> jopp-public@lists.ourproject.org <jopp-public@lists.ourproject.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [JoPP-Public] Proposal for the evolution of jopp</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="BodyFragment"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt">
<div class="PlainText"><br>
Dear Mathieu,<br>
<br>
Thanks for all your efforts!<br>
<br>
Personally I would love to see JoPP becoming more experimental and more<br>
meaningful regarding the urgent challenges that lie ahead.<br>
<br>
In the two issues that I have helped to edit, CITY and ALTERNATIVE<br>
INTERNETS, we had a special "experimental" section where different types<br>
of formats were encouraged and I think there is a lot of potential in<br>
this direction.<br>
<br>
But still, I think that having the different formats "separate" (a<br>
section of peer-reviewed articles, a section on policy recommendations,<br>
etc)., as a juxtaposition, does not work very well.<br>
<br>
It would be nice to have a format that brings closer together more<br>
theoretical with more practical work. For example, publishing a<br>
theoretical paper and its "translation" to a policy recommendations<br>
document *together* by a theorist and a policy expert respectively, who<br>
would need to collaborate for this.<br>
<br>
It would be also nice to see more work that builds on the idea of<br>
"creative commons" where "content" is more important than "authorship".<br>
E.g., a paper where someone performs a creative collage of pieces<br>
written by different authors on the same topic.<br>
<br>
I am just brainstorming, in case it helps. I am sure there are many<br>
ideas. But no matter how good the idea it will not work if it is not<br>
supported by the "community".<br>
<br>
So, I would vote for a TRANSITION issue, before any decision, that<br>
encourages experimental formats and "meta-" pieces with elaborate<br>
arguments about how a progressive journal on peer production should look<br>
like. It could also include invited works by people that are not today<br>
part of the community but we believe that they would help to make the<br>
desired "opening".<br>
<br>
My 2 cents :-)<br>
<br>
Panos.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 27.04.20 10:45, Mathieu O'Neil wrote:<br>
> Hi all<br>
><br>
> Recently members of the jopp editorial board have been debating on<br>
> jopp-editorial how best to continue the work of the journal. It is now<br>
> time to move this discussion to jopp-public. There are two main points<br>
> to resolve.<br>
><br>
> First, jopp needs to move away from the WordPress CMS, which is<br>
> becoming unmanageable, to a html site. The most logical move would be<br>
> to include only PDFs of articles so that the only publishing work to<br>
> be done for an issue would to (a) upload the PDFs, and (b) build an<br>
> index page. Peter who has done a great job managing the CMS and<br>
> protecting it from hostile intrusions for quite a few years now<br>
> (thanks Peter for all your work!) will assist in the transition to a<br>
> new format, time permitting, and will then hand over the day-to-day<br>
> management to new people, including - but not limited to - Steve.<br>
> I will create a separate thread to discuss options. Please use it to<br>
> discuss website-related issues.<br>
><br>
> Second, the �themed issue� format is also onerous and needs to be<br>
> revisited. Before detailing my proposal for how jopp could evolve into<br>
> the future, I am reproducing relevant parts of the jopp-editorial list<br>
> discussion.<br>
><br>
> Peter said: I was wondering if building a �rolling issue� that would<br>
> collect relevant work over a period of some months or even years with<br>
> publication of individual articles when reviewed and ready could<br>
> become an alternative model for jopp to publish contributions for<br>
> certain topics.<br>
><br>
> Mathieu said: I've never really cared for the rolling article model<br>
> that tripleC for example uses - too loose, no sense of a journal, of a<br>
> structure. At the same time it is clear that the current model is not<br>
> sustainable right now.<br>
><br>
> I have been thinking anyway: doing a purely academic/scientific<br>
> journal is not what we need right now. Jopp was born at Oekonux and it<br>
> has always had a political / activist aim as well as a scientific one.<br>
> We have established a body of work, time to do something with it.<br>
><br>
> So I want to propose a move to "jopp Vol. 2" where we release 2 or 4<br>
> times a year a shorter issue, with a newsletter, political news about<br>
> the commons, practical-legal-political advice on building commons<br>
> infrastructure, etc as well as one or two peer-reviewed articles. This<br>
> could either happen straight away or after a "POST" or "TRANSITION"<br>
> issue. Interested to know your thoughts. This discussion will need to<br>
> be moved to jopp-public.<br>
><br>
> Kat said: I think Mathieu's suggestion here is a solid one - one of<br>
> the (many) reasons we've all been attracted to jopp, I think, is the<br>
> politics attached to it - the sense that it, in its own small way,<br>
> helps us all imagine a different way of doing things to that of the<br>
> status quo. Given this, it makes a lot of sense to enable the journal<br>
> format to evolve with the times and the shifting needs of those<br>
> involved in it.<br>
><br>
> On this note, I found the reframing of the Interactions ACM magazine<br>
> submissions very inspiring - as they have engaged in exactly this<br>
> process. Take a look here if you've not seen it already:<br>
> <a href="https://interactions.acm.org/submissions">https://interactions.acm.org/submissions</a> Perhaps jopp can think though<br>
> a more informal submission structure like this, which while still<br>
> allowing for and welcoming peer-reviewed pieces where applicable, also<br>
> prioritises creative and/or practitioner submissions that are<br>
> shorter-form, focused on pressing issues at hand, and flow freely<br>
> between digital and print formats. This might need to involve a<br>
> different website structure, which enables syndicated blog/short-form<br>
> posts that can be easily distributed - but I'm sure that's doable too,<br>
> if we all put our tech skills together to assist Peter in doing so.<br>
><br>
> Maurizio said: I was also inspired by ACM Interactions - in particular<br>
> in the way they have engaged in rethinking the format of submissions<br>
> to adjust to current times. My feeling is that Mathieu suggestion is<br>
> solid, and a transition or post issue discussed with the public<br>
> mailing list feels<br>
> like necessary.<br>
><br>
> [end jopp-editorial discussion]<br>
><br>
> I now expand on the proposal outlined above for the possible evolution<br>
> of the Journal of Peer Production.<br>
><br>
> My proposal involves (a) adopting a more frequent publication schedule<br>
> of shorter issues divided into sections and (b) articulating the<br>
> journal with a (yet to be created) Commons Policy Council.<br>
><br>
> In the most general terms, peer producers are people who create and<br>
> manage common-pool resources together. It sometimes seems as if �peer<br>
> production� and �digital commons� can be used interchangeably. Digital<br>
> commons are non-rivalrous (they can be reproduced at little or no<br>
> cost) and non-excludable (no-one can prevent others from using them,<br>
> through property rights for example). Practically speaking,<br>
> proprietary objects could be produced by equal �peers,� however peer<br>
> production has a normative dimension, so that what chiefly<br>
> characterizes this mode of production is that �the output is<br>
> orientated towards the further expansion of the commons; while<br>
> the commons, recursively, is the chief resource in this mode of<br>
> production� (S�derberg & O'Neil, 2014, p. 2).<br>
><br>
> The Journal of Peer Production has tracked the evolution of peer<br>
> production from open knowledge to open design and manufacturing. It<br>
> approaches its ten-year anniversary in the time of the global<br>
> pandemic, and of the continuing environmental crisis. The impacts of<br>
> Covid-19 are profound, but will not last forever, though local<br>
> infection pools may subsist in poorer countries for much longer than<br>
> in the Global North. In contrast, the environmental crisis is here to<br>
> stay. Significant social change is required to stave off climate<br>
> destruction, and peer production principles such as cooperation and<br>
> trust, transparency in production, collective democratic<br>
> decision-making, etc., can usefully contribute to necessary processes<br>
> of �relocalization� and �degrowth�.*<br>
><br>
> I believe the jopp has a role to play here, which necessitates that it<br>
> expands its work beyond academic research into practical advice to<br>
> develop commons and policy formulation to grow the ecology which<br>
> supports the commons. However a journal is not an appropriate vehicle<br>
> for addressing concrete proposals to entities in the public policy<br>
> sphere such as political parties, governments, unions, and civil<br>
> society, so another institution must be created.<br>
><br>
> I have some external research grant funding until the end of the year,<br>
> part of which can�t be used because of Covid-19. I am proposing to<br>
> repurpose some of this funding to assist in the creation (website<br>
> design? publication design? what else?) of a �Commons Policy Council�<br>
> website and organisation that would release White Papers and How-to<br>
> Guides. It could also have a �policy tracker� system documenting where<br>
> commons-oriented policy initiatives are being proposed, where they are<br>
> at, what support they need, etc.<br>
> <br>
> In this scenario jopp would acquire a new purpose, in addition to its<br>
> role as instigator and disseminator of research into peer production<br>
> and social change: operating as a development site for practical<br>
> resources, and as a laboratory for policy proposals.<br>
><br>
> The journal structure could be (random examples and ordering):<br>
><br>
> jopp issue #... (1,2)<br>
> or [to mark the evolution:]<br>
> jopp Vol [1] or [2021] (1,2)<br>
> <br>
> Editorial notes<br>
> <br>
> Peer-reviewed section<br>
> 1-peer-reviewed article<br>
> 2- peer-reviewed article<br>
><br>
> Policy section<br>
> 3-Policy proposal: tax incentives for non-profits and cooperatives?<br>
> 4-Policy proposal: pros and cons of Universal Basic Income vs free<br>
> public services?<br>
><br>
> How-to section<br>
> 5-Guide: requirements for organising community beehives?<br>
> 6-Guide: requirements for organising local mesh networks?<br>
> <br>
> Invited comments / art section<br>
> 7-article<br>
> 8-intervention<br>
> <br>
> For peer review, we already get the occasional unsolicited article<br>
> subs + varia subs. We can send out generic CFPs for all sections. And,<br>
> we can also have shorter themed sections if people still want to do them.<br>
><br>
> Possibly each section could have a couple of editors who could oversee<br>
> one or two sections each. I'd be happy to oversee peer-review and<br>
> policy; there can be a rotation.<br>
><br>
> The advantage of this model is that we only really need to have two<br>
> (out of eight possible) items to release a small-size issue. So that�s<br>
> why I think we can commit to two issues a year� maybe?<br>
><br>
> As seen above, several members of the editorial board have expressed<br>
> support for the outline of this new format.<br>
><br>
> So, now seeking input from the broader jopp community: what do you<br>
> think? Any suggestions, objections, observations?<br>
><br>
> cheers,<br>
> Mathieu<br>
><br>
> PS. Once again � please use the parallel thread for technical website<br>
> issues � thanks!<br>
><br>
><br>
> *The following is an excerpt from the final chapter of the forthcoming<br>
> Handbook of Peer Production, �Be Your Own Peer! Principles and<br>
> Policies for the Commons� (O�Neil, Toupin, Pentzold):<br>
><br>
> The governance of peer produced projects, one of the central aspects<br>
> of the studies of peer production, aspires to the self-regulation of<br>
> participants in autonomous collectives. This governance raises the<br>
> broader issue of political sovereignty. The appeal of self-governance<br>
> for peer production participants can perhaps be explained by the<br>
> amount of strategic control most citizens in liberal democracies have<br>
> over their lives and environment. This control has been drastically<br>
> reduced by unaccountable global actors � e.g. financial markets,<br>
> extractive industrial interests, supranational trade agreements, and<br>
> the list goes on � who influence and constrain the policy options of<br>
> notionally democratic nation-states. In the early 2020s, racist<br>
> nativism and authoritarianism are being embraced by some people in<br>
> reaction to the failures of export-oriented, deregulated, and<br>
> globalized neoliberalism. A way out of this political crisis is linked<br>
> to a solution to the environmental crisis: we must head toward more<br>
> democracy by relocalizing or deglobalizing, and towards more<br>
> sustainability by degrowing, our economies.<br>
><br>
> As engaged researchers, we believe the Handbook of Peer Production<br>
> needs to offer a response, however modest, to these political and<br>
> ecological challenges. Addressing the macro-economic aspects of<br>
> �deglobalization� would lead us far away from peer production, towards<br>
> issues which would probably require a Handbook of their own.<br>
> Accordingly, we focus here on relocalization as it relates to<br>
> degrowth (d�croissance), the downscaling of over-production and<br>
> over-consumption (Kiallis, 2019; Latouche, 2006). In a nutshell:<br>
> unlimited growth and consumption are not sustainable, so we need more<br>
> access to free public services, a shorter work week, and a turn<br>
> towards climate-friendly industries. In this context, Stefania Barca<br>
> (2019) suggests that the one question that matters is that posed by<br>
> self-governing workers: �should surplus value be reinvested in<br>
> production, or not�? Yet since only a handful of firms and industrial<br>
> sectors are run following so-called �holacratic� (i.e., communal or<br>
> participatory) principles, degrowth must � in a first stage at least �<br>
> be deployed in a piecemeal, hybrid manner.<br>
><br>
> In the context of discussing the cooperative sector, Gibson-Graham<br>
> (2003) suggest that if we perceive economic relations as already<br>
> plural, then the revolutionary �project of replacement� can be<br>
> modified into one of �strengthening already existing non-capitalist<br>
> economic processes and building new non-capitalist enterprises,� of<br>
> establishing �communal subjects� (p. 157). Several chapters in the<br>
> Handbook of Peer Production (see Braybrooke & Smith; O�Neil & Broca;<br>
> Pazaitis & Drechsler, this volume) have discussed ways in which this<br>
> �strengthening� has begun to occur at the municipal level. However, as<br>
> noted by Adrian Smith (2014) in his account of London�s early-1980s<br>
> Technology Networks (community-based workshops which provided open<br>
> access to shared machine tools, technical advice, and prototyping<br>
> services), a �key lesson from this history is that �radical<br>
> aspirations invested in workshops, such as democratizing technology,<br>
> will need to connect to wider social mobilizations capable of bringing<br>
> about reinforcing political, economic and institutional change�<br>
> (Smith, 2014, online). In other words, the ecology around peer<br>
> production must be nurtured. Further, adopting strictly local settings<br>
> leaves the public policy terrain open to neoliberal and/or reactionary<br>
> perspectives.<br>
><br>
> References<br>
><br>
> Barca, S. (2019) The labor(s) of degrowth. Capitalism Nature<br>
> Socialism, 30(2), 207�216.<br>
><br>
> Gibson-Graham, J.K. (2003). Enabling ethical economies: Cooperativism<br>
> and class. Critical Sociology. 29(2): 123-164.<br>
><br>
> Kallis, G. (2019) Socialism without growth. Capitalism Nature<br>
> Socialism, 30(2): 189-206.<br>
><br>
> Latouche, S. (2006) The globe downshifted. Le monde diplomatique. January.<br>
> <a href="https://mondediplo.com/2006/01/13degrowth">https://mondediplo.com/2006/01/13degrowth</a><br>
><br>
> Smith, A. (2014) Technology Networks for socially useful production.<br>
> Journal of Peer Production, 5: Shared Machine Shops.<br>
> <a href="http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-5-shared-machine-shops/peer-reviewed-articles/technology-networks-for-socially-useful-production/">
http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-5-shared-machine-shops/peer-reviewed-articles/technology-networks-for-socially-useful-production/</a><br>
><br>
> S�derberg, J., & O�Neil, M. (2014). Introduction. In: S�derberg, J., &<br>
> Maxigas (Eds.), Book of Peer Production (pp. 2-3). G�teborg: NSU<br>
> Press. <a href="http://peerproduction.net/projects/books/book-of-peer-production/">
http://peerproduction.net/projects/books/book-of-peer-production/</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> JoPP-Public mailing list<br>
> JoPP-Public@lists.ourproject.org<br>
> <a href="https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public">https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
JoPP-Public mailing list<br>
JoPP-Public@lists.ourproject.org<br>
<a href="https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public">https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public</a><br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>