Ms. Schaefer,

I'm pleased to tell you that your recent proposal for the article "Open 
Source in Name, but not in Nature" has been provisionally accepted to 
the Code4Lib Journal. The editorial committee is interested in your 
proposal, and would like to see a draft. As a member of the editorial 
committee, I will be your contact for this article, and will work with 
you to get it ready for publication.

I'm afraid that due to the holiday season, we've gotten a bit behind in 
our schedule.  In order to potentially publish your article in in the 
9th issue (target date March 15), we'd need to see a complete draft by 
January 15 (this could probably be extended a week or so at most).   If 
this is too quick for you, we could instead slate the article for a June 
2010 issue, which would give you another couple of months to write a 
draft.  Please let me know that you've received this letter, and what 
your feelings are about whether a March Issue 9 timeline for your 
article is feasible. In considering that, you might want to consider our 
editorial suggestions/requirements for your articles below.

We definitely like the idea of an article about good practices for 
collaborative community open source development, and we think using the 
Archivist's Toolkit as an example is probably quite useful. However, 
we're concerned that the article not end up a purely negative rant 
against the maintainers of the Archivist's Toolkit.  We'd like you to 
make sure to focus on some positive aspects of the development of the 
Toolkit as well as negative aspects;  to avoid attributing malice to any 
individuals but instead focus on some of the contextual challenges that 
may have led to the negative aspects; and most especially to include 
suggestions for improvements to the process that take account of such 
contextual challenges and don't assume that missing good intentions are 
all that's needed. In general, in order to publish your piece (which we 
will probably identify as a 'column' or 'opinion' in the journal), we 
want to make sure it ends up being constructive and collegial, and not a 
purely negative attack on the project or it's adminstrators.  I'm sure 
this is what you intended all along, but we're concerned that the topic 
could easily become overly attacking without explicit care to the contrary.

Hopefully this makes sense to you, please let me know if it doesn't!

Please note that final drafts must always be approved by a vote of the 
Editorial Committee before being published; in this case we'll 
definitely want to make sure the article is constructive and not an attack.

Looking forward to working with you,
Jonathan Rochkind