I also think this is a good idea. I'd like to comment on the straw
man:

>   * Regarding who is eligible, I suggest it be
>     individuals, teams, or corporate entities.
>     Awardees must be willing to serve on the
>     next year's nominating committee.

"Awardees" should be changed to "nominees": If you are nominated and
not willing to server on next year's committee, then you must resign
from the process before the award is given out.

I am not sure about corporate entities: I do think the teams from a
corporate entity should be eligible, but the organization as-a-whole
should not get the award. Instead we want to recognize those
individuals in the corporate entity who actually built (and likely
championed) the software. I think this has more importance and is more
consistent with the values of the community.  

>   * Regarding what is eligible, I suggest the
>     software be open source, directly
>     library-related, and developed within the
>     past two years.

1 - Truly Open Source: only using a license recognised by OSI[1] is
    acceptable. Let's be explicit to avoid confusion.
2 - I would suggest "first released in the last 3 years". This
    supports new activities, and gives them more chance to get
    traction in the community. Sometimes things immediately take off;
    other times they take time to make it.
3 - "Directly library related" is problematic. It could rule out some
    significant contributions. I would instead say something like
    "Directly impacting libraries". 

>   * Regarding the timing, I suggest this be an
>     annual award given at each Code4Lib
>     conference.

Sounds good.

-Glen Newton

[1]http://www.opensource.org/

-- 

Glen Newton | [log in to unmask]
Researcher, Information Science, CISTI Research
& NRC W3C Advisory Committee Representative
http://tinyurl.com/yvchmu
tel/tél: 613-990-9163 | facsimile/télécopieur 613-952-8246
Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information (CISTI)
National Research Council Canada (NRC)| M-55, 1200 Montreal Road
http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/
Institut canadien de l'information scientifique et technique (ICIST) 
Conseil national de recherches Canada | M-55, 1200 chemin Montréal
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R6  
Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada   
--



From:         Eric Lease Morgan <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>
To:           [log in to unmask]
Subject: [CODE4LIB] code4lib open source software award
Date:         Thu, 5 Mar 2009 19:52:42 -0500

As a community, let's establish the Code4Lib Open Source Software Award.
Lot's of good work gets produced by the Code4Lib community, and I believe it
is time to acknowledge these efforts in some tangible manner. Our profession
is full of awards for leadership, particular aspects of librarianship,
scholarship, etc. Why not an award for the creation of software? After all,
the use of computers and computer software is an essential part of our
day-to-day work. Let's grant an award for something we value -- good,
quality, open source software.

While I think the idea of an award is a laudable one, I have more questions
than answers about the process of implementing it. Is such a thing
sustainable, and if so, then how? Who is eligible for the award? Only
individuals? Teams? Corporate entities? How are awardees selected?
Nomination? Vote? A combination of the two? What qualities should the
software exemplify? Something that solves a problem for many people?
Something with a high "cool factor"? Great documentation? Easy to install?
Well-supported with a large user base? Developed within the past year?

As a straw man for discussion, I suggest something like the following:

  * Regarding selection, I suggest there be a
    committee who solicits nominations and
    selects the awardee(s). As the years go by
    an individual from the committee drops off
    and the/an awardee becomes a member.

  * Regarding who is eligible, I suggest it be
    individuals, teams, or corporate entities.
    Awardees must be willing to serve on the
    next year's nominating committee.

  * Regarding what is eligible, I suggest the
    software be open source, directly
    library-related, and developed within the
    past two years.

  * Regarding the timing, I suggest this be an
    annual award given at each Code4Lib
    conference.

These are just suggestions to get us started. What do you think? Consider
sharing your thoughts as comments below, in channel, or on the Code4Lib
mailing list.

--
Eric Lease Morgan
University of Notre Dame