My point yesterday was not just about the dangers of the small group
(although that's true too), but more that if you go down the path of
starting a journal it makes sense to be really clear about your goals,
and the audience you expect to serve.   Which in turn drives the format
and content.  *If* you want to attract people on the fringes, then you
might need to do a little bit of legwork to find out what sort of
content appeals to them and make sure to provide at least some of that.
If serving the people who have already decided to participate is the
goal, then you've already got your finger on that pulse.

To pick up on your question of perception:  I lurk on this list and I
decided to submit a proposal to the conference because others in this
community are working on similar problems.  And I was really struck by
the openness of the process...decisions made by vote, not by an
invisible conference panel.  I think that the same openness was
reflected in things like the lightening talk format at the conference.
And that's all good.

But stepping into more formalized things like journals and going after
nonprofit status takes things up a notch in terms of the need for
awareness of your goals, and how you present and conduct yourselves,
because it becomes a reflection of a professional peer group.  That's
non-trivial.  Which way you go depends on whether you intend to grow
beyond the current self-selected participants.  That's not a value
judgement...just an observation.

Finis.  I promise. :-)


> It's been nice to see this thread in public...since oftentimes
> discussion happens in real time in IRC (which isn't publicly logged--
> yet). I think Colleen is right to point out the dangers of having a
> 'core group'. But I would argue that the core group is really a
> mirage, and that up until now it has simply been people who've
> decided to participate (for better or for worse) in #code4lib.
> //Ed