 |
 |
I really like Roy's idea of establishing "nodes of activity around various ideas" coming out of this discussion. In an attempt to create a "node" for formal publication, I've put together the first draft of a formal statement of purpose, format, and editorial policies for a code4lib journal. It's on the code4lib wiki: http://wiki.library.oregonstate.edu/confluence/display/code4lib/code4lib +journal+-+mission%2C+format%2C+guidelines Please take a look and make changes or add comments -- I'm hoping this process can be as open and democratic as the conference. There's a lot of room for building in some of the fantastic, innovative suggestions that have come up over the past few days. Alternatively, if you really hate the idea of a formal publication, start another node for whatever approach(es) you prefer. The important thing is that we get people engaged and get ideas out there. -- Jeff Davis Public Services Librarian University of Alberta Libraries [log in to unmask] IM screen name: jd4v15 (MSN, AIM, Yahoo) -----Original Message----- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Roy Tennant Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 5:03 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] A code4lib journal proposal +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 >