I would agree with this. As an active Code4Libber and LITAer, I can attest that much gets done by who steps up to do it, and that the daily work for say, planning a Code4Lib conference and a LITA Forum (both of which I have helped to do) is exactly the same. Same thing with other daily functions of running an organization like getting accounts on the website and so on--except that at least a few people who do this work for LITA are paid. There are advantages to both organizations (so to speak), and I participate in both for that reason.
Digital Services Librarian
Loyola University Chicago
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brett Bonfield
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 11:48 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] lita
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Eric Lease Morgan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I think this just goes to show, with the advent of the Internet,
> centralized authorities are not as necessary/useful as they once used
> to be. —ELM
I haven't been in libraries long enough to know what LITA was like pre-Internet, but this conclusion runs counter to my experience of LITA and the Internet.
In practice, LITA and code4lib seem to be about equally centralized and
authoritative.* And the Internet wouldn't exist without centralized authorities, and centralized authorities remain necessary and useful for almost everyone who uses the Internet. Even people who don't rely on huge ISPs or Google or Facebook or Twitter or GitHub or Mozilla or FSF tend to rely on centralized authorities for standards and protocols.
I love code4lib and I love that a lot of other people find it useful, too.
I also get more value from LITA than it costs me in membership dues. I'm glad both exist, and I wish both had more participants.