/me wonders if this particular branch of the conversation would benefit from reading the other branch where there is a action plan starting to formulate to create better documentation + doc/comm practices; however, she does not want to deny anyone the chance to continue this branch of the conversation.
/me grabs popcorn as is customary in reading these type of branched conversations, while starting to plot out areas/categories for this weekend's doc dive.
Sent from the ball and chain
> On Feb 17, 2015, at 6:27 PM, Cary Gordon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Sure. Until I can turn my Raspberry Pi into a Robo-brarian 5000, technology alone is not going to be the answer. Choosing right tool for the job, however, can provide some relief to the day-job-holding masses.
> Does/should becoming involved in Code4LibCon be the modern equivalent of Myst?
>>> On Feb 17, 2015, at 4:05 PM, Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> The conference organizers have control, in theory, but I think that they are understandably loath to mess with the traditional mix. There is no place for them to ask a question and get a single, cogent, authoritative answer.
>> Who is better to _provide_ a single authoritative answer about a conference then the conference organizers? Why would they be looking to get a single authoritative answer from someone else -- I'd assume everyone else would be looking to them!
>> I do see how the decentralized nobody-in-charge but everybody-willing-to-complain nature of Code4Lib as a community (rather than an organization) poses some challenges. (It also provides some advantages, everything is a trade-off, although not all trade-offs are equal, and the best trade-off may change when the context changes).
>> But, I'm not sure this is a technology/tooling problem. As we all have to remember at our day jobs too, don't look for technological product solutions to social/organizational problems. They aren't going to be successful, but you can spend a lot of resources learning that.