Reviewer: A

Reviewer: Roberta Buiani

1) Is the subject matter relevant?

This article examines the case of Civic Tech Toronto, using the concept
of the commons to illuminate its particular organization and structuring.
the subject is quite relevant, especially given the particular status of
technology and the very diversified technology sector in Toronto as well
as its uneven relation with governance, economy and community. also
very relevant the final observations regarding the transition online due to
the pandemic, and the impact this had on the way organizations such as
CTTO have reacted (and other similar initiatives relying on hands on and
practical work and encounters among people often not familiar with each
other).

2) Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?

The essay draws a general picture of the actual typical interactions and
relationships unfolding at CTTO. the author makes extensive use of
Bauwens’ characterization of the commons, while only mentioning Hardt
and Negri and Federici. I understand that Bauwens might address the
tech context more directly. However, the literature on the commons is
much wider, especially on the tech side. Using Buawens as an authority
(and also considering his recent controversial “tech-bro” turn against
inclusivity) feels a bit reductive, or at least makes me feel there is
something missing

3) Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?

The author described how CTTO organizes its events. I was expecting a
more thorough (or detailed) analysis of how events happened, especially
how the relationships built during these events. In addition, I thought the
whole part regarding the lit-review and the methodologies were
somehow distracting from the core of the argument. they felt a bit like a
“dissertation proposal” and less like an exciting account of a vibrant
groups with potentials and problems.

4) Is the article well written?

The article could use some re-organization. while reading the article, I
wanted to read a straightforward definition of what “the Commons” here,
but I kept getting fragments. In addition, at the moment, the core mostly
lies in the second half of the essay (that’s when the article really became
interesting and relevant). I am wondering how the author would feel like
anticipating 3.4. before and even putting 4. before 3 (the author
discusses Civic Tech as commons, before describing them, maybe the
solution is to accompany each comparisons (as commons, as platform)
to its own description?

5) Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?

If I may give some advice, I would suggest that the two long paragraphs
at 1. listing methods and academic motivations be shortened (maybe to
1 short paragraph? the reader needs to know how and why the
argument is made, but only as far as it is directly linked to the subject
itself). This will leave more time and space to dig into the social, cultural
and power dynamic occurring (the latter not even mentioned, even when
the author addresses the lack of /yet the presence of internal
hierarchies). this seems to me an important point, because it really
characterizes the peculiar status of CTTO in relation to the notion of the
commons.

Reviewer: B

The language holds a good level, there is empirical research in the bottom of the article, and the
topic is relevant to JoPP. That being said, the author has written the article like s/he was an
ideologue of Michel Bauwens, no attempt is ever made to explore and problematize that theoretical
approach.

Rather, the case is held up to tick off that Civic Tech Toronto fullfiles the conditions of a CBPP.
This qualifies as an ”external critique” in the critical theory-sense, i.e. The author’s critique is not
built up from the views of the respondents themselves, (except for a complaint in the begining by
the author that the respondents are not using the desired terminology about themselves). CBPP is
applied as an external measure rod to evaluate the discourse of the practitioners. Case description
and theoretical resources are interfoliated like a smooth jigzaw pussle, but much too smooth. What
are the discording voices within CTTO, it never shows in the material. CTTO are declared to value
pluralism, but that plurality of voices do not shown up in the discussion. Nor is the theory seriously
put at risk by meeting inconsistencies in the empirical material. Indeed, references go to scholars of
very different temperament and ideas (Jasanof, Feenberg, Negri….) without any mentioning of how
they could (or could not) fit together. A sustained discussion of the incompatibilities between the
various theoretical resources that the author draws on is lacking and much needed.

The author would be helped by reading and referencing to scholars who have studied similar
phenomena, hacklabs/hackerspaces (Maxigas) and Hackatons (Irani), etc., several of whom have
published in JoPP, but where the empirical material is mobilised to qualify the often idealised
picture of CBPP, in scholarly and media discourses and in the actors self-representations, as
expressed in statements like this one:

”… reticence to monetize the community and its work), all are committed to a vision of the use-
value of the community, even if those visions are pluralist and complementary.”

Reviewer: C

The Author sets out to describe a civic tech network, Civic Tech Toronto, as a site for
Commons Based Peer Production (CBPP) and suggest possible orientation for the mentioned
organization (and similar ones) for the future. The article is very engaging and picks up on
key issues relevant for understanding the intersection of democracy and technology and
understanding sites of CBPP as drivers for policy change and toward sates as key actors in
creating conditions for egalitarian modes of production. With a better balance in the
presentation of key concepts such as “civic tech”, “Commons Based Peer Production”,
“Commons” and “Partner State Approach”, the text could be made more clear, concise, and
understandable. In the current state, the theoretical backdrop is presented through out the text
with uneven focus, making it less accessible and at time confusing. This is unfortunate,
because it is clear that the author has very interesting insights and knowledge on the subject,
that are very valuable to the JPP community.