Dorothea states elegantly what I implied (I guess I needed two cuppas):

> Donna's post suggests a criminally underserved population,
> one I think code4lib could profitably target along with its
> developer core: the "accidental" library tech.  ....
> there is NOTHING out there for us.  ....  Code4lib needs
> to decide if its communications goals are internally or externally
> focused.

The last statement is really important, and is compounded by what sort of
publication this will be: formal/informal, peer review/not, etc.  Walt
Crawford's observations while reviewing the 10th anniversary edition of
D-Lib Magazine in the latest _Cites_ may be useful.
http://cites.boisestate.edu/civ6i4.pdf

[Walt, commenting on the Bonita Wilson-Allison L. Powell article:]
There's a good explanation of why D-Lib is not a refereed journal. The
founders opted for "quick turn-around from submission to publication over
peer review..."  Despite its less formal status, D-Lib articles have been
cited frequently, an average of nearly  118 citations per year.   ....
Perhaps, even though it's a magazine, D-Lib has enough of a journal's
formality to discourage most reader feedback.

[Walt, commenting on Amy Friedlander's article:]
She explicitly thought and thinks of D-Lib as a magazine, not a journal.
"[W]e were freed from the canons of peer review to engage in speculation
that might eventually feed into the formal process of juried results."

So, who's your audience?  How will you encourage feedback?  What latitude do
you want to have, and what influence do you intend?

(Going to get second cup now.)
Din.

Donna Dinberg
Systems Librarian/Analyst
Reference and Genealogy Division
Library and Archives Canada
[log in to unmask]
** My own thoughts, of course, not those of my employer. **