 |
 |
I was planning on creating a Google groups list (just cause it's easy) as a space for communicating on this project and working on getting it started. I intend to this before I leave today. Sorry I too am busy with a million things! But I think we can keep this going at a deliberate, if not lightning, pace. I plan to keep pushing the ball. I have a list of about a dozen people who have expressed willingness (either on the list, or privately to me) to put at least some time in, at least initially. I think that's plenty---in fact more than enough for the kind of actual work team I hope we can get, but I'm not (or trying not to be) worried about too MUCH interest at this point! (Dchud isn't on this list at the moment, since I didn't see him express such interest, but he's certainly welcome). I agree that let's not get side tracked into discussing tech, it's an issue, but a minor one that for some reason we seem to like spending most of our time discussing. So yeah, I plan to create a google group today. I plan to also make a list on the trac wiki of people who have, for the moment, agreed to be on what I'll call the 'editorial collective' (Hey, I'm just making this stuff up as I go along too). The google group will be open to all, but I think it's important to have a distinct list of people who have actually committed to putting some time in (until they change their mind)--which at the moment is I guess open to all too? (Although I do worry about it becoming too large a group; I think a small team of people who have committed is what gets things done---too big a group, and nobody's responsible; but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it). I also plan to send out an email with some suggested ways to structure our thinking about steps we need to take, and put some supporting material on the wiki. I'll publisize both to the list. Sorry I'm not lightning speed, I only re-catalyzed this discussion like last week! Jonathan Daniel Chudnov wrote: > At the risk of offending, discussion seems to be repeating itself w/r/to > the potential code4lib journal project. > > Perhaps those willing and able to step up and get the ball rolling, so to > speak, could sally forth nearby, and we could avoid further continuing > and > repeating discussion of tools recommendations that don't get picked up? > > The question isn't "what tool should we use?" It's "who's going to do > this?" Several people have offered to help, but who's going to take the > lead? If the answer's nobody, well, that's fine too. > > </rant> > > Jonathan wrote: "Anyway, I'd be interested in working on this to get > this > off the ground. Is anyone else? Especially someone(s) with a bit more > Code4Lib "cred"/history than me?" > > To which: cred/history is illusory, but to effect the greatest illusion, > it pays to be one who takes the lead on a project like this and runs with > it until it's up and running. :) > > -Dan > -- Jonathan Rochkind Sr. Programmer/Analyst The Sheridan Libraries Johns Hopkins University 410.516.8886 rochkind (at) jhu.edu