Just an observation re one of Art's statements:

> TPMDP #5: A spin-off "traditional" publication would still be
> possible downstream. A lot of people only want to find out
> more about the innards of a project after seeing its final
> results, so nothing precludes a more neatly packaged version
> at some point in the process and, in fact, this is where a
> lot of this would lead. But they key to me is that the messy
> "bits" would also be available if there was interest.

This would capture audience at both ends.  At the messy end, coders want
like-minded folks to join in with a flow of discussion, comment, additions,
suggestions, etc.  At the other end, folks like me (although I watch the
coder bit, too) and possibly those who "don't watch" (as I defined earlier)
will gain from formal, organized, bring-it-all-together presentations.

You will need to define the formal end to make it distinct from the messy
development stuff.  Art implies that not all messy stuff will have formal
end-points; I agree with that.  If downstream publication (within code4lib)
is accepted as part of this proposal, though, then those participating will
need a few "rules for authors" written to guide both coders who have worked
through messy stuff first and those who wish to make submissions that do not
or will not have messy-code components.  This will provide consistency in
the formal presentations that a journal ought to have and that audiences

Din. (editor and journalist in a past life)

Donna Dinberg
Systems Librarian/Analyst
Reference and Genealogy Division
Library and Archives Canada
[log in to unmask]
** My own thoughts, of course, not those of my employer. **