 |
 |
+1 I know there has been a lot of sentiment toward simply hacking on our web site, but as useful as that might be, it is still preaching to the choir. As Peter and others have said, if we want to broaden our reach we will most likely need to produce something that will get much wider notice -- that is, something more magazine or journal like. A publication gets broader notice in ways that putting up something on a web site doesn't. I'm not arguing against anything, I think everyone should participate in what they feel is most useful. Having said that, I know that creating a new publication is not trivial. But it can also be done if enough people want to make it happen. I've kept Current Cites going for almost sixteen years, with a monthly publication deadline. A magazine is much more substantial, but is also unlikely to be published on a monthly basis either. Perhaps it's time to move beyond debate and simply allow folks to coalesce around the activities that turn them on. Perhaps we could use the web site or wiki to establish nodes of activity around various ideas, and see who signs on/contributes? Roy On Feb 23, 2006, at 3:40 PM, Binkley, Peter wrote: >> One question is certainly, "Who will this journal serve?" > > The more I think about it, the more I think the main justification > for a > code4lib journal is to get our stuff noticed more. There are too many > enthusiastic Library 2.0 bloggers who spend their time talking about > non-library Web 2.0 services, and asking why we don't do cool stuff > like > that in our libraries. They should pay more attention to the people > who > are actually building the tools to do that, i.e. us. So the journal > should serve the forward-thinking library community as a whole. > > Peter >