Hi fellow members. I would like to publish a series of 5 book reviews based on a reading circle I am running over the summer and autumn. In addition an introductory piece based on an edited version of the attachment that addresses 'cooperativeness' more directly.

While the books seem interesting they don't seem to fit (my personal and individual perception) of the distinct focus Mutual Interest has had, apart from the Ocalan book. While initially I envisioned quite a strict set of topics (co-ops, unions, land value tax, anti-trust and intellectual property rights), we have since taken a broader direction. Am convinced broadening the focus has been the right thing to do, even through I personally had previously been opposed it.

So it might very well be that I'm wrong this time too, but do think we should have a distinct focus, even if it means not covering some important and interesting topics that don't fit that focus. That focus does not have to be strictly defined, but generally would describe it as revitalising the classic labour movement organising methods - co-ops and unions, alongside more broadly presenting economic analysis from a mutualist/distributist/market socialist perspective.

Am open to broaden, and even if I wasn't, if other members wish to do so they have every right to do so, and I will remain as committed to the project whatever path we collectively choose to pursue. However, do think that focus should be somewhat defined and distinct from other publications and wish we wouldn't end up as a more general left leaning publication with a different ownership and governance structure. In other words, what is the area of focus we could have that no other publication has? I want readers who visit our site and see our articles go "I get it, this is what sets the publication apart from everyone else".

Also totally open to changing the editorial process, but then I would personally think we need to have a discussion on what that process would look like beforehand and have members agree on it. For example, if the vote is public and not anonymous, the people opposed to the proposal might feel more social pressure not to voice their opinion compared to those who support it. This is why we have decided to do the participatory budgeting process anonymously.

Also, it might be worth considering guidelines on whether each article pitches are voted separately instead of in bulk (this vote gives no option for those who might want to see a book review of one of the books but not of some others, like me), whether inviting all the members in every decision about whether to publish an article leads to notification spam, etc.

Thank you for responses so far.

"what is the area of focus we could have that no other publication has?"

Precisely. What is this?

"editorial process?"

Okay. What is this?

I don't think there is another publication where a similar portion of the content is focused on both unions and co-ops (especially consumer cooperatives have historically played as important part as trade unions in the history of the left, but currently they are almost entirely neglected in other publications) and that has a similar mutualist/distributist/market socialist take on the economy. Grassroots Economic Organizing comes close, and would see it as a publication most similar to ours.

The editorial process is that people send their articles to the editors who then decide whether to go ahead with them or not.

Okay!

But this is not what is publicly written on the website.

Please make this correction a priority, otherwise its very misleading.