Jonathan Rochkind writes:
> I worry about putting the name Code4Lib on it, and implying that
> somehow Code4Lib collectively approves the awardee. Code4Lib can't
> do much of anything collectively. But the name seems to have
> acquired a cachet among people who may not understand what it
> is. People within Code4Lib will have different opinions of what is
> a good project and what is an awful project, and that's fine,
> Code4Lib can include diversity and disagreement, which is why I'm
> not sure it can put it's stamp of approval on a project.
I'm not so worried about that. No, we won't have unanimity on
everything, but I'm sure we can reach a rough consensus that everyone
can live with, and an award with CODE4LIB written on it is going to
carry more weight that one with ERIC written on it. I think we should
just do the best we can. (That's how we deal with all the other
Impossible Problems, of course!)
> It might be a good idea, but maybe not with the Code4Lib name. But
> I worry in general we don't collectively know enough about what
> makes good software to give a Software of the Year honor reliably.
The Motion Picture Academy doesn't collectively know enough about what
makes good movies to give a Best Picture Oscar reliably, either, but
that doesn't stop them taking their best guess.
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "Examining Work No 88, A sheet of A4 paper crumpled into a ball
(1995), the viewer is thrust into a conceptual space similar
to that evoked by looking at a shovel or a collection of vacuum
cleaners" -- art critic Will Kwan.