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.