Subject: [CODE4LIB] code4lib open source software award

From: Eric Lease Morgan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 19:52:42 -0500

As a community, let's establish the Code4Lib Open Source Software Award.

Lot's of good work gets produced by the Code4Lib community, and I believe it
is time to acknowledge these efforts in some tangible manner. Our profession
is full of awards for leadership, particular aspects of librarianship,
scholarship, etc. Why not an award for the creation of software? After all,
the use of computers and computer software is an essential part of our
day-to-day work. Let's grant an award for something we value -- good,
quality, open source software.

While I think the idea of an award is a laudable one, I have more questions
than answers about the process of implementing it. Is such a thing
sustainable, and if so, then how? Who is eligible for the award? Only
individuals? Teams? Corporate entities? How are awardees selected?
Nomination? Vote? A combination of the two? What qualities should the
software exemplify? Something that solves a problem for many people?
Something with a high "cool factor"? Great documentation? Easy to install?
Well-supported with a large user base? Developed within the past year?

As a straw man for discussion, I suggest something like the following:

  * Regarding selection, I suggest there be a
    committee who solicits nominations and
    selects the awardee(s). As the years go by
    an individual from the committee drops off
    and the/an awardee becomes a member.

  * Regarding who is eligible, I suggest it be
    individuals, teams, or corporate entities.
    Awardees must be willing to serve on the
    next year's nominating committee.

  * Regarding what is eligible, I suggest the
    software be open source, directly
    library-related, and developed within the
    past two years.

  * Regarding the timing, I suggest this be an
    annual award given at each Code4Lib
    conference.

These are just suggestions to get us started. What do you think? Consider
sharing your thoughts as comments below, in channel, or on the Code4Lib
mailing list.

--
Eric Lease Morgan
University of Notre Dame

---

From: Shaun Ellis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 09:35:42 -0500

I think this is a good idea.  However, I wonder if the number of
contributions from those other than the sponsoring institution or original
developer might also be considered when evaluating open source software?
Contributions come in many forms -- code, design, testing, and documentation
to name a few.  The sustainability and evolution of software is probably
more important than its initial popularity.  Libraries have struggled to
work together on the maintenance of these tools, despite the fact that the
"distributed workload" argument is often cited as a reason to move toward
open source.

Even though I believe those who develop "cool" tools should be rewarded for
their vision and hard work, I would lean toward rewarding developers
involved in projects which remain active over time, and provide sustained
value to the community.   In this sense it would be the software that gets
the award, and by proxy, anyone who had a hand in developing it.

-Shaun Ellis
Web Applications Developer
Rutgers University Libraries

---

From: Glen Newton - NRC/CNRC CISTI/ICIST Research <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 10:08:36 -0500

I also think this is a good idea. I'd like to comment on the straw

>     next year's nominating committee.

"Awardees" should be changed to "nominees": If you are nominated and
not willing to server on next year's committee, then you must resign
from the process before the award is given out.

I am not sure about corporate entities: I do think the teams from a
corporate entity should be eligible, but the organization as-a-whole
should not get the award. Instead we want to recognize those
individuals in the corporate entity who actually built (and likely
championed) the software. I think this has more importance and is more
consistent with the values of the community.  

>     library-related, and developed within the

1 - Truly Open Source: only using a license recognised by OSI[1] is
    acceptable. Let's be explicit to avoid confusion.
2 - I would suggest "first released in the last 3 years". This
    supports new activities, and gives them more chance to get
    traction in the community. Sometimes things immediately take off;
    other times they take time to make it.
3 - "Directly library related" is problematic. It could rule out some
    significant contributions. I would instead say something like
    "Directly impacting libraries". 

>     annual award given at each Code4Lib

Sounds good.

-Glen Newton

[1]http://www.opensource.org/

-- 

Glen Newton | [email-masked]
Researcher, Information Science, CISTI Research
& NRC W3C Advisory Committee Representative
http://tinyurl.com/yvchmu
tel/tél: 613-990-9163 | facsimile/télécopieur 613-952-8246
Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information (CISTI)
National Research Council Canada (NRC)| M-55, 1200 Montreal Road
http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/
Institut canadien de l'information scientifique et technique (ICIST) 
Conseil national de recherches Canada | M-55, 1200 chemin Montréal
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R6  
Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada   
--

From:         Eric Lease Morgan <[email-masked]>
Sender:       Code for Libraries <[email-masked]>
To:           [email-masked]
Subject: [CODE4LIB] code4lib open source software award
Date:         Thu, 5 Mar 2009 19:52:42 -0500

--
Eric Lease Morgan
University of Notre Dame

---

From: Jonathan Rochkind <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 11:20:40 -0500

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.

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.

---

From: Karen Schneider <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 11:32:29 -0500

"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."

On the one hand, I agree. On the other hand, just to note, there was a
breakout session at C4L where quality issues of OSS were discussed; I wrote
up notes and communicated them to one of the breakout mods who contacted me
post-conference. Obviously, it's a beginning, but it was an excellent
conversation. I can post notes here -- I wasn't sure what to do with them.

I originally had Jonathan's response when Eric raised the idea (it was the
genesis of the breakout session, actually). I wonder if there aren't a
couple of awards: one for new ideas, one for projects sustained past a
certain point. There are interesting, important, cool ideas, and then
there's the stuff that survives the long hard slog--which is where a lot of
quality issues show up.

I also disagree on the whole issue of forcing nominees to select the next
award. Could be a way of taking a project out of the running indefinitely!
Plus the library OSS community is incestuous enough without having competing
projects voting on one another. (Though, an interesting problem: if we
recuse people involved in projects, does that leave assessment largely to
folks unfamiliar w/ OSS?)

-- 
-- 
| Karen G. Schneider
| Community Librarian
| Equinox Software Inc. "The Evergreen Experts"
| Toll-free: 1.877.Open.ILS (1.877.673.6457) x712
| [email-masked]
| Web: http://www.esilibrary.com
| Be a part of the Evergreen International Conference, May 20-22, 2009!
| http://www.solinet.net/evergreen

---

From: Mike Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 16:40:45 +0000

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    <[email-masked]>    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.

---

From: Jonathan Rochkind <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 11:40:13 -0500

Karen, you should post your notes from that break-out somewhere. Take 
your choice of on the listserv, on www.code4lib.org, on 
wiki.code4lib.org, on your own blog, wherever you think is appropriate. :)

I think it's good that as a community we're starting to discuss these 
issues more, and learn from our experiences (which we have more 
experience to learn from).  My concerns are still there though about 
having such an award with the code4lib name on it.

Jonathan

---

From: Karen Schneider <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 11:41:47 -0500

> that doesn't stop them taking their best guess.

And sometimes, grasshopper, it is through the doing that comes the
knowing...

-- 
-- 
| Karen G. "old zen master" Schneider
| Community Librarian

---

From: Glen Newton - NRC/CNRC CISTI/ICIST Research <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 11:45:58 -0500

Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
"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."

Karen Schneider wrote:
"On the one hand, I agree. On the other hand, just to note, there was a
breakout session at C4L where quality issues of OSS were discussed;"

I respectfully disagree: I don't see this as a software quality award.

I would suggest some criteria for judging software for this
award. Software that is:
 1 being used by a significant portion of the community
 2 filling a significant need
 3 having a positive impact on the community
 4 supportive others participating/collaborating
 5 responsive to the community
 6 (to a lesser extent) innovative
 7 <your criterion here>

I also have no problem with an award with code4lib on it. It is just
saying that the awardee software has been found to be <see
1,2,3,4,5,6,7... above> by the code4lib award committee.

-glen

---

From: Jonathan Rochkind <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 12:02:35 -0500

> that doesn't stop them taking their best guess.

And if the Oscars are our model, color me even more concerned. :)

But the _effect_ of a 'wrong' oscar choice is, what?  Somebody makes 
money they didn't 'deserve', people see movies they end up not liking.

The effect of a 'wrong' Code4Lib award is potentially steering people 
the wrong way in their software choices, or in their education about 
what makes good software, with the Code4Lib stamp of approval on it. As 
Mike notes, that name carries cachet now, bizarrely enough.

When we first started the Journal, I actually at first was reluctant to 
attach the Code4Lib name to it, because Code4Lib is such an amorphous 
community, it didn't seem fair to imply that the informal community had 
somehow given it's stamp of approval to these articles. But in general 
other editors and the code4lib community in general wanted Code4Lib 
attached, they wanted the journal to be seen as a product of the 
community, so good enough.

Jonathan

---

From: Ross Singer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 12:07:09 -0500

> And if the Oscars are our model, color me even more concerned. :)
But think of the Freebase mashup opportunities

-Ross.

---

From: Eric Lease Morgan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 12:39:15 -0500

On 3/5/09 7:52 PM, "Eric Morgan" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> As a community, let's establish the Code4Lib Open Source Software Award...

Thank you for the feedback, and please keep it coming. I am saving the
comments for future reference so I don't miss anything.

-- 
Eric Lease Morgan

---

From: Brenda Chawner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 21:41:37 +1300

I'm wondering why there should just be one award. The New Zealand Open Source Awards (http://www.nzosa.org.nz/2008-winners) have a number of categories:

- individual
- project
- use in government
- use in business
- use in education, etc.

and I'm wondering if a similar approach would work for Code4Lib. I don't think it needs quite so many categories, but perhaps:

- individual
- project
- use in a library/information service

The NZOSA definitely raise the profile of open source projects/organisations/people in New Zealand, and I'd like to think that the C4L ones would do the same in a (global) library context.
--
Brenda Chawner
Senior Lecturer & LIM Programmes Director
School of Information Management
Victoria University of Wellington
P O Box 600, Wellington  NEW ZEALAND
(04) 463 5780 | fax (04) 463 5446 | Room EA201 | [email-masked]

---

From: Eric Lease Morgan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 08:39:27 -0400

On 3/7/09 4:41 AM, "Brenda Chawner" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The NZOSA definitely raise the profile of open source
> projects/organisations/people in New Zealand, and I'd like to think that the
> C4L ones would do the same in a (global) library context.

Thank you for bringing these awards to our attention. [1] Can you be more
specific in regard to the effect the awards have on: 1) the organization
granting the award, and 2) things getting the award. Specifically, is the
NZOSA endorsing people or are they awarding products (software)? What is the
process used to decide who (what) "wins".

[1] http://www.nzosa.org.nz/

-- 
Eric Lease Morgan

---

From: Eric Lease Morgan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 08:43:35 -0400

On 3/7/09 4:41 AM, "Brenda Chawner" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I'm wondering why there should just be one award. The New Zealand Open Source
> Awards (http://www.nzosa.org.nz/2008-winners) have a number of categories:
> 
> - individual
> - project
> - use in government
> - use in business
> - use in education, etc.

While I do not think Code4Lib can afford to give awards in many categories,
yet, I do believe the sorts of categories listed above as well as the ones
listed at the link (documentation, contribution, infrastructure, etc.) are
the sorts of categories for which an award can be granted.

-- 
Eric Lease Morgan