Re: [CODE4LIB] Formalizing Code4Lib? [diy]

[Benjamin Armintor]

Thank you, Coral and Tom. I'd also like us to:

1. stop characterizing regional meetings as DIY, as if we have outsourced
the organizing of the national meeting somehow without doing it ourselves.
Many people worked hard to put the 2016 meeting (and all the others) on,
and they don't deserve to have their efforts minimized this way.

2. stop acting like the people participating in this on-list discussion
aren't aware of the list archives and/or wiki.

3. resist the temptation toward facile technology and/or publishing
metaphors, especially ones that seem to ignore the vigorous discussion of
economies of centralization & decentralization (including more than one
call for more regional meetings, if I remember correctly) that happened at
C4L16.

4. recognize that there are numerous good-faith reasons people are
interested in national meetings, not least of which is to provide the
context for the TEI-style meetings that Eric mentions.

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Tom Johnson <
johnson.tom+code4...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Eric,
>
> I appreciate that you're trying to make a call to action, but this latest
> email is stunningly condescending.
>
> As I'm sure you must know, people in this community do hold regional
> meetings. These meetings take substantial effort to arrange. The wiki is
> full of documentation, advice, and lessons learned the hard way by the many
> people who have done this work over the years.
>
> The result has been a vibrant community which has had an important
> influence on technology practice in libraries and played a key role in
> establishing the careers of some of the most talented people working in
> this field. I can't see why you would want to erase that in favor of a
> 12-step guide to holding a meetup that you dashed together for an email.
>
> We can debate the merits of holding a national conference, but let's not
> begin that debate by pretending that the regional meetups are so easy to
> hold that they just happen like magic. They don't, and they never have.
>
> - Tom
>
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Eric Lease Morgan 
> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 9, 2016, at 7:55 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > One note about what we're discussing: when we talk about just doing the
> > > regional events (and I mean beyond 2017, which will be a special case
> if
> > a
> > > host city can't step in), we need to realize that we have a lot of
> > members
> > > who aren't in a Code4Lib region.
> > >
> > > You might think I'm talking about Alaska, because that's where I lived
> > when
> > > I first came to a Code4Lib conference. And that's certainly one place,
> > > along with Hawaii, that would be left out.
> > >
> > > But even living in Pittsburgh, I'm not in a Code4Lib region, that I can
> > > tell. Pittsburgh isn't in the midwest, and we also aren't part of the
> > > tri-state region that Philly's in. I'm employed (part-time/remote) in
> the
> > > DC/MD region, so if I can afford the drive and hotel, that's probably
> the
> > > one I'd pick right now. I guess?
> > >
> > > So, even landlocked in the continental US, it's possible not to have a
> > > region.
> > >
> > > More importantly, though: my understanding is that our international
> > > members are fairly spread out -- maybe Code4Lib Japan being an
> exception?
> > > -- so, even ignoring weird cases like Pittsburgh, we stand to lose some
> > > really fantastic contributors to our community if we drop to
> > regional-only.
> > >
> > > Just something else to consider.
> > > - Coral
> >
> >
> > Interesting. Consider searching one or more of the existing Code4Lib
> > mailing list archives for things Pittsburg:
> >
> >   * https://www.mail-archive.com/code4lib@listserv.nd.edu/
> >   * http://serials.infomotions.com/code4lib/
> >   * https://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CODE4LIB
> >
> > I’d be willing to be you can identify six or seven Code4Lib’ers in the
> > results. You could then suggest a “meet-up”, a get together over lunch,
> or
> > to have them visit you in your space or a near-by public library. Even if
> > there are only three of you, then things will get started, and it will
> grow
> > from there. I promise. —Eric Morgan
> >
>

Re: [CODE4LIB] state of the art in virtual shelf browse?

[Benjamin Armintor]

Jenn,

To pitch another example in with Tom's:

CLIO at Columbia http://clio.columbia.edu/catalog/9399500

Our layout is different, and (as you can see) it's collapsed by default.

- Ben

On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 10:54 PM, Tom Cramer tcra...@stanford.edu wrote:

 Jenn,

 You can make your own conclusions about state of the art, but here is
 Stanford's virtual shelf browse integrated into SearchWorks:

 - embedded in a record view as a film strip (see the browse related
 items section of the page)
 - a full page, gallery view of related items, grouped together by call
 number

 By design, this virtual shelf browse is across Stanford's entire holdings,
 regardless of physical location of the books.

 Another implementation to look at is Harvard's Stacklife:
 http://stacklife.harvard.edu/

 - Tom




 On Jan 25, 2015, at 4:30 PM, Jenn Riley wrote:

  At my library, we're starting to think about virtual shelf browsing
 options. Who's doing a really good job with this now? What organizations
 can I look to for state of the art implementations for inspiration?
 
  Thanks for any suggestions.
 
  Jenn
 
 
  ---
  Jenn Riley
  Associate Dean, Digital Initiatives | Vice Doyenne, Initiatives
 numériques
 
  McGill University Library | Bibliothèque Université McGill
  3459 McTavish Street | 3459, rue McTavish
  Montreal, QC, Canada H3A 0C9 | Montréal (QC) Canada  H3A 0C9
 
  (514) 398-3642
  jenn.ri...@mcgill.ca

Re: [CODE4LIB] GitHub Myths (was thanks and poetry)

[Benjamin Armintor]

You are definitely insulated from loss of material by the distributed
character of git, but it would be difficult to replace the social network
around the projects. You really see this when you work with a non-Github
git repository: Getting a copy of it is trivial, but you have no mechanism
for alerting the original repository (much less its network) of potentially
valuable changes. Of course, there's the old-fashioned splash-pages and
contact emails, but the relative triviality of advertising changes to a
Github repository (and accepting them, for that matter) is pretty
groundbreaking.

- Ben


On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Tom Johnson johnson.tom+code4...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  But while I get the argument for utility, there does seem to be
 barrier-to-entry there for someone just wanting to submit a poem.

 The original suggestion wasn't about utility, but about modes of writing.
 Git repositories would make for poems which are easily shared, copied,
 forked, and merged back together. I'm interested in the relationship this
 has to the idea of an oral tradition. Especially given that a git
 poetry tradition would record its own history in the medium.

 I agree that wordpress is much more accessible. It seems obvious to me that
 we could post poems where we see fit and aggregate them. Written and oral
 is even more accessible than that. It seems obvious to me that we could
 write down and/or recite poems, pass them around, and commit them to
 memory. I think we should do all these things--and maybe play around with
 git, too.

 For me, the important take away from this discussion is that git art
 shouldn't be the dominant form of expression or the raison d'etre for the
 'nerd poetry' idea.

 As an aside: I share the concerns about GitHub. I resisted joining for
 years because of exactly this issue. If Facebook is a man-in-the-middle
 exploit on social interaction, then surely GitHub is the same on Free
 Software development. I thought the FOSS community would be better served
 if we all put up our git repositories in our own ways, and tried to build
 tools for collaboration. As it turns out, GitHub has done wonders for code
 sharing and collaborative development and the company has been good to us,
 which is why I'm there now. I still worry about ways the our platform
 dependence could go badly. Luckily, the risk is mitigated by gits
 distributed and portable nature.

 - Tom


 On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Jason Stirnaman jstirna...@kumc.edu
 wrote:

  Another option might be to set it up like the Planet. Where individuals
  just post their poetry to their own blogs, Tumblrs, etc., tag them, and
  have $PLANET_NERD_POETS aggregate them.
 
  Git and Github are great. But while I get the argument for utility, there
  does seem to be barrier-to-entry there for someone just wanting to
 submit a
  poem.
 
  Jason
 
  Jason Stirnaman
  Digital Projects Librarian
  A.R. Dykes Library
  University of Kansas Medical Center
  913-588-7319
 
  
  From: Code for Libraries [CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] on behalf of Karen
  Coyle [li...@kcoyle.net]
  Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 10:42 AM
  To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
  Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] GitHub Myths (was thanks and poetry)
 
  Shaun, you cannot decide whether github is a barrier to entry FOR ME (or
  anyone else), any more than you can decide whether or not my foot hurts.
  I'm telling you github is NOT what I want to use. Period.
 
  I'm actually thinking that a blog format would be nice. It could be
  pretty (poetry and beauty go together). Poems tend to be short, so
  they'd make a nice blog post. They could appear in the Planet blog roll.
  They could be coded by author and topic. There could be comments! Even
  poems as comments! The only down-side is managing users. Anyone have
  ideas on that?
 
  kc
 
 
  On 2/20/13 8:20 AM, Shaun Ellis wrote:
(As a general rule, for every programmer who prefers tool A, and says
that everybody should use it, there’s a programmer who disparages
 tool
A, and advocates tool B. So take what we say with a grain of salt!)
  
   It doesn't matter what tools you use, as long as you and your team are
   able to participate easily, if you want to.  But if you want to
   attract  contributions from a given development community, then
   choices should be balanced between the preferences of that community
   and what best serve the project.
  
   From what I've been hearing, I think there is a lot of confusion about
   GitHub.  Heck, I am constantly learning about new GitHub features,
   APIs, and best practices myself. But I find it to be an incredibly
   powerful platform for moving open source, distributed software
   development forward.  I am not telling anyone to use GitHub if they
   don't want to, but I want to dispel a few myths I've heard recently:
  
   
  
   * Myth #1 : GitHub creates a barrier to entry.
   * To contribute to a project on GitHub,