Reviewer: Adnan Hadzi

1. Is the subject matter relevant?
The paper under review offers a welcome and timely discussion of current open source/shared networking practices, a subject that deserved increased attention both in view of current new media practices in the digital culture (and the widening use of the internet (vs. off network) as a public forum for publishing independent media content, information, community activism/projects, etc) as well as political and academic debates/research investigations regarding participatory culture, authorship (copy-left, co-authorship, creative commons-based peer production) and collaboration.

In many respects this is a good submission, tackling an interesting issue and doing so in an intelligent manner. The researcher has done some great background research and used it well in the construction of the submission. The background research and the depth of the researcher’s interest in DYI networks here give an original insight into the ways in which artists/activists use DYI mesh networks as a mode of distribution.

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 paper has a format that tends to reflect a shorter review sociological study of such practices rather than a longer, research-intensive theoretical essay. Due to its relevance to current studies of collaborative DYI mesh-network culture, and its particular application – reflecting a  community-oriented approach of DYI mesh network practices combining contributions from a diverse range of practitioners, “Going off the Cloud” is recommended for publication, but small additions and clarifications are recommended as well.

3. Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgements?
No

4. Is the article well written?
Yes. Paper is clearly structured into a short preface and introduction which sketches the main ideas of new DYI mesh-networking, open source / collaborative online culture.  The second part of the paper includes sections which interpret Speculative Newtworks, structured into segments on parasitic networks and distributed networks. The conclusions seem manifesto like, offering advice for such practices in five concluding paragraphs.

5. Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?
In the following, I will briefly list some of my observations (recommendations):

1. The paper starts introducing DIY network but provides little information about what agenda precisely brings them together.

2. Perhaps one might consider the absence of any reference to content. All the discussions in the paper, revolving around off-the-cloud projects collaboration, and co-authorship (or audience co-participation in the generation/reutilization of DYI mesh networks), does not give clear indication of WHAT actually is shared over those networks, examples might help.

3. I recommend not ending with a Michael de Lange quotation but with a summary that proposes a brief outline / explication of why the author thinks DYI networking coproduction is either politically or artistically productive (and do we know who/how many folks use this?)

Reading my comments, it appears that the paper does not need much of an overhaul to make it for publication. I suspect that it would not be difficult to expand on the above comments as it stands.

Reviewer: Felix Stalder

I was struck by the use of the term “off-line”, in the title and through-out the text. Usually, it means “not connected to the Internet” while in most cases (apart from a few project” it means “connected to a different type of network, one that respected user rights etc”. I think this is confusing. I like the term “off-the-cloud” because it point to another Internet, rather than the term offline, which point outside the Internet (and it’s arguable if such a space still exists).

My only substantive critique is that the authors fail to assess the specific value of the artists contributions, as different from other people’s contributions to the same issues (there are lots of activist projects in the same field that are not mentioned, eg. freedom box). What is it that makes artists contributions special? Do they built real-life infrastructures? Rarely, as most projects barely reached beyond beta stage and few users. Or are they valuable because they take up issues particularly early, before they become more widely understood (artists are the antennae of the human race, as McLuhan once put it)? Or is their particular value that their actions are of particular symbolic significance, since as artists, they tend to operate on a highly visible stage, and thus they can remind others about the need to pay attention of these issues and engange more deeply with networking?

I think addressing this issue would strengthen the value of this paper in JPP, which is primarily read by non-artists. Though, personally, I think to address this question would also be interesting to artists.

1. Is the subject matter relevant?
Yes

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?
See question above. The subject matter is very interesting, particularly when considering how it forms and contributes with a vital part to the grand narrative of the commons now challenging the antiquated narrative dualism of the 19th and 20th century.

3. Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgements?
Yes, it’s interesting and informative. I’m not sure if all citations are correct. One that struck me as unusual I looked up.  What they cited as “Castells, M, 1996,  The space of flows. Wiley‐Blackwell
, New Jersey” should probably be  Sam, J. S. 2012. Space of Flows/Space of Place. The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization.

4. Is the article well written?
Yes.

5. Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?
No.

Reviewer: Katalin Hausel

1. Is the subject matter relevant?
The paper is a mapping of recent and contemporary artistic approaches that address different aspects of the networked world, focusing on practices using diy or diwo offline network technology. It is relevant in two ways, as an art historical paper identifying artistic trends and their relevance to contemporary culture, and also, as a collection of practices and initiatives that offer new ways to understand, engage with and re-imagine the infrastructure of the internet that has become increasingly obscure, invisible and uncontrollable.

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?
Describing a range of practices, the author identifies the role of the artist as “the facilitator, the mediator, the commoner of knowledge and experience”. Their ability to build, use and alter technologies, which while ubiquitous, tend to remain unknown and unnoticed, therefore beyond our control, enables artists to play a special role, not as solitary visionaries, but as engaged participants, practitioners, builders and provocateurs of what Armin Medosch calls the networked commons. While sorting the different practices into 4 categories: Community Mesh Networks, Tactical Mesh Networks, Off-the-cloud; and Speculative Networks, a more general picture of the role of art in society is outlined, appearing as different forms of organization to mobilize, to reinvent network systems and create new forms of life.

3. Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgements?
It is particularly interesting that the author connects these new practices with conceptual artistic approaches from the sixties and seventies. At a time when systems thinking was not such a widespread practice, several artists in fact turned their attention to uncovering and playing with structures that underlie political, economic or social reality. I miss the mention of feminist artists in this respect, in particular the work of Mierle Laderman Ukeles, who focused on keeping things clean, working and cared for, and as such, making invisible infrastructure (of maintenance) visible. The connection may be especially interesting because unlike in the world of business tech, in the hacker/artist world there are women, and the paper very well demonstrates.

4. Is the article well written?
The paper is a rich and enjoyable read. There are some small typos, which will have to be taken care of before publication.

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