We now have
sixty-five eighty-nine contributors, over ten thousand twenty-eight thousand page views, and a couple of hundred visits a day on average. Following on some [robust] discussion over at Crooked Timber, I thought I’d start asking what people have to say about four matters:
1. Decision-making: I’d prefer decisions about policy to be taken out of my hands, but we still need to figure out how an editorial committee can be formed and what it’s scope should be.
2. Membership policy. At the moment we require that contributors be professional academics working in political philosophy, and have completed their doctoral studies. Would a more open policy be better?
3. Comments policy. I’ve restricted comments to people within the academic community, as evidenced by IP or email addresses or homepages. The goal here is to cut down on unproductive and unpleasant comments that may serve to inhibit academics from making use of the site. Would a less cautious policy generate better discussion between political philosophers? Please bear in mind that any policy has to be practical to implement.
[Also to keep in mind is that of the 151 comments at the site so far, 147 bear a particularly salient characteristic in common.]
4. Future projects. At the moment, members are free to post papers, problems, and announcements, etc., when they choose to do so. There may be scope, however, for organising more regular features as a collective, such as reading groups for books, or discussions of the articles in the latest issue of the leading political philosophy journals. These would require groups of people to take the initiative in organising them though.