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
purposes.

I really liked /usr/lib/info, but Dan's right, it was too early.
code4lib.org isn't.

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.

-Ross.