Reviewer: Athina Karatzogianni

1. Is the subject matter relevant? Yes
2. Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Yes

Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?

I suggest the authors have a look at this article which is less hopeful “that it will result in a transformation of democracy, ushering in a culture of place-based politics and active citizenship through decentralizing the geography of politics and political action.” It also includes additional bibliography to pick up which might be enriching to this work as it includes fieldwork with platform players in Barcelona. Please find link here: https://works.bepress.com/athina_karatzogianni/32/

3. Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgments? No.
4. Is the article well written? Yes
5. Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?

The authors find that ‘place-based civic tech’ broadens the organizational capacity and allows for the emergence new online/offline political processes by updating the infrastructure of democracy: “The hope of radical municipalists is that it will result in a transformation of democracy, ushering in a culture of place-based politics and active citizenship through decentralizing the geography of politics and political action.” I invite the authors to consider whether this hope is materializing, redesigning of labour processes for example or not and where the people they observed are placed themselves in terms of class. It might help to look at this piece https://works.bepress.com/athina_karatzogianni/32/  Also, please to explain what “To update the infrastructure of democracy” means, as it is rather standing out from an otherwise critical academic discourse.

Reviewer: Peter Troxler

1. Is the subject matter relevant? — Yes
2. Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? — Yes
3. Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgments? — No
4. Is the article well written? — Yes
5. Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?

I would love the authors to reflect on the specific socio-economic and historic situation in Barcelona and Spain and to discuss to what extend the specific situation and development of Spain influences the working of the phenomenon they discuss.

I would also appreciate some explanation what the actual impact on political decisions, spending etc. is that the decision/proposals generated through the platform in question.

Generally, I would love the case section to be expanded with some more evidence from the empirical work authors have done.

Below I have responded in line to the reviewers comments:

Reviewer 1

Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?

I suggest the authors have a look at this article which is less hopeful “that it will result in a transformation of democracy, ushering in a culture of place-based politics and active citizenship through decentralizing the geography of politics and political action.” It also includes additional bibliography to pick up which might be enriching to this work as it includes fieldwork with platform players in Barcelona. Please find link here: https://works.bepress.com/athina_karatzogianni/32/

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

The authors find that ‘place-based civic tech’ broadens the organizational capacity and allows for the emergence new online/offline political processes by updating the infrastructure of democracy: “The hope of radical municipalists is that it will result in a transformation of democracy, ushering in a culture of place-based politics and active citizenship through decentralizing the geography of politics and political action.” I invite the authors to consider whether this hope is materializing, redesigning of labour processes for example or not and where the people they observed are placed themselves in terms of class. It might help to look at this piece https://works.bepress.com/athina_karatzogianni/32/  Also, please to explain what “To update the infrastructure of democracy” means, as it is rather standing out from an otherwise critical academic discourse.

The article the reviewer suggested was very useful, both in terms of balancing the optimism and enriching with some of the empirical data covered. Refer, in particular, to the changes in the section titled ‘The case of radical municipalism’ where there is a discussion of how platforms can be “too ideological”. This also allowed us to incorporate a few more nuanced statements in the theoretical section about partisanship of so-called inclusive systems. Furthermore, we also revised some text to include the insights of how variations of cooperativism have played out in Spain – addressing the point on updating the infrastructure of democracy. This also led to some rephrasing in the conclusion to make it less ‘optimistic’ as the reviewer aptly pointed out.

Reviewer 2

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

I would love the authors to reflect on the specific socio-economic and historic situation in Barcelona and Spain and to discuss to what extend the specific situation and development of Spain influences the working of the phenomenon they discuss.

In the section titled ‘The case of radical municipalism’, we included a few more facts and statistics and citations around the socio-economic and historical situation. By combining these with insights from the article mentioned by Reviewer 1, we were able to address the question of how the historical situation influenced the functioning of the direct democracy initiatives in the cities.

I would also appreciate some explanation what the actual impact on political decisions, spending etc. is that the decision/proposals generated through the platform in question.

To highlight how the points mentioned above, we added some new empirical evidence gathered from the events attended by the first author in November 2018. We mentioned the “citizen-initiated referendum process” that will be initiated in Madrid this year and how this all part of the same movement (refer to the synthesis section). It allowed us to show how there is a direction being taken on how decisions are made, budget is spent and citizen involvement actually plays out.

Generally, I would love the case section to be expanded with some more evidence from the empirical work authors have done.

We addressed this point in several different ways: (i) we added some information and dates about the events that the first author was a participant in, and online spaces he was active in throughout the research. This is reflected in the Methods section, where specific events are cited and dated. Furthermore, a short explanation of how the field notes were analyzed has been added. Furthermore, we added some insights and evidence of the empirical work done in the last two sections.