 |
 |
On Feb 22, 2006, at 12:26 AM, Daniel Chudnov wrote: > On Feb 21, 2006, at 11:27 PM, Mark Jordan wrote: >> In other words, http://code4lib.org/ could _be_ the journal >> but it could be a new type of journal. > > I'll second this. > Now this I like. I had feared the overhead and processes of a traditional journal, but I think code4lib.org is perfect for our purposes. I really liked /usr/lib/info, but Dan's right, it was too early. code4lib.org isn't. It still sounds like there'd still need to be /a/ process (and we need to work that out), but the overhead is very low. And I like that. -Ross.