 |
 |
Jonathan Rochkind writes: > I worry about putting the name Code4Lib on it, and implying that > somehow Code4Lib collectively approves the awardee. Code4Lib can't > do much of anything collectively. But the name seems to have > acquired a cachet among people who may not understand what it > is. People within Code4Lib will have different opinions of what is > a good project and what is an awful project, and that's fine, > Code4Lib can include diversity and disagreement, which is why I'm > not sure it can put it's stamp of approval on a project. I'm not so worried about that. No, we won't have unanimity on everything, but I'm sure we can reach a rough consensus that everyone can live with, and an award with CODE4LIB written on it is going to carry more weight that one with ERIC written on it. I think we should just do the best we can. (That's how we deal with all the other Impossible Problems, of course!) > It might be a good idea, but maybe not with the Code4Lib name. But > I worry in general we don't collectively know enough about what > makes good software to give a Software of the Year honor reliably. The Motion Picture Academy doesn't collectively know enough about what makes good movies to give a Best Picture Oscar reliably, either, but that doesn't stop them taking their best guess. _/|_ ___________________________________________________________________ /o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk )_v__/\ "Examining Work No 88, A sheet of A4 paper crumpled into a ball (1995), the viewer is thrust into a conceptual space similar to that evoked by looking at a shovel or a collection of vacuum cleaners" -- art critic Will Kwan.