On Feb 22, 2006, at 12:26 AM, Daniel Chudnov wrote:
> On Feb 21, 2006, at 11:27 PM, Mark Jordan wrote:
>> In other words, http://code4lib.org/ could _be_ the journal
>> but it could be a new type of journal.
> I'll second this.
Now this I like. I had feared the overhead and processes of a
traditional journal, but I think code4lib.org is perfect for our
I really liked /usr/lib/info, but Dan's right, it was too early.
It still sounds like there'd still need to be /a/ process (and we need
to work that out), but the overhead is very low.
And I like that.