I’ve always been of the mind that Code4Lib is an experiment… that it shouldn’t be centralized, organized, etc., and it’s colored my thoughts on other Code4Lib-ish issues (conferences, projects, etc.) I’ve ranted on at times that all these Code4Lib-ish things should be as Code4Lib is. I don’t think so anymore. In fact, I think thinking in this way was sort of putting the cart before the horse. I think thinking like that was actually trying to see Code4Lib in a centralized way — see it as a single thing.

My new approach to Code4Lib is that, if I don’t have a strong enough preference about something to actually get involved with it, I’m going to refrain from commenting unless, of course, opinions are solicited. Then I’ll just offer an opinion and go on my way. Take, for instance, the Code4Lib Planet. Sure, I have opinions but, no, it’s not something I really want to take up at this time. For that reason, I should just let the editors do what they want (which is what Ed said in his post basically).

In a way, this is approaching activities in the same way that I would an open source project. So what if the editors do something I don’t find useful. There is nothing stopping me from setting up my own Planet of Code4Lib authors for my own use if I feel so strongly about an issue. If I find an open source project that is close to what I want, but not quite there, it makes more sense to use it as I need to, modifying it as needed (rather than to try and sway the project’s owners away from their well-considered path).

This doesn’t mean I shouldn’t offer suggestions if solicited, or provide feedback about how something might be more useful to me as a random user, but there’s no need to feel some sort of distributed ownership over anything just because it’s Code4Lib-related. That just gets in the way of those who are already doing great work. If there is a project related to Code4Lib that I want to work on, I can work out the sticky issues with those who also want to put in the time.

As with most epiphanies, this isn’t really a big revelation. Most people were probably already thinking this way. I guess when you realize you’ve been deluded, though, it seems like a burst of light, voices on high, or something like that.

I think the question was originally posed on the mailing list as to how much structure Code4Lib should put into place to ensure that these conferences continue to happen (and perhaps grow). The issue has also been framed as a question of how much formality do we want to put into place (and where is the proper intersection between structure and formality)? My gut reaction was that I don’t want much formality and that any structure beyond a list of things that need to get done (and a list of volunteers willing to do them) is too much.

I think this is in part because I see Code4Lib as an experiment. There are plenty of well established (national and regional) organizations that put on conferences year after year (they are very dependable). Code4Lib is, for me, the exact opposite. It is a loose group of people who have gathered around a particular banner (library technology) because it interests us — it is more than just a job or a way to pay the bills (though many people in the Code4Lib cloud work in day jobs that do just that). In the end, though, I don’t need Code4Lib to fulfill any professional obligations and, while I would be sad to see it disappear, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it either — I don’t see it as a movement.

It is this loose association that keeps me interested and coming back. There are times that I do not feel myself in sync with the group and there are times that I do. It is a relationship that I can take or leave, and I do (over and over again). I do not see Code4Lib as some sort of centralized organization that has a majority opinion. There are, at times, majorities of opinion, but they are no more representative of Code4Lib as a whole than the minority opinions because there is no consistency in them (the majorities) over time. I think this is, in part, because Code4Lib hasn’t, up to this point, been formalized into a “real thing” that needs to take a stand on issues (e.g. has a need to promote a consistent opinion, works as a force in the library community, etc.)

The issue to me, I think, boils down to a question of decentralization/centralization. I’d like to see Code4Lib stay as decentralized as possible. I think a couple years of conferences have taught us that we definitely need some procedures (best practices). We also need a way to recognize people who volunteer to step up and take responsibility for something that needs to get done (for the fun stuff to happen). I think we’ve also learned after a couple of bouts that we would benefit from some code that makes making decisions, as a group, easier.

These to me, though, are more indicators that we need better documentation (and more communication) than they are indicators that we need a centralization of the organization. Both approaches would be valid ways to go… don’t get me wrong. We could document more (put our organizational knowledge into external form) or, just as valid, we could rely on people who would hold offices over a period of years. These are just two different paths. I think whether a person chooses one over the other probably has to do with where s/he sees Code4Lib going in the future (that is what paths are good for after all — or, maybe I should say, “Whether one sees the path as the point or whether there is an attainable destination in mind”).

The David Clark quote seems relevant: “We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code.” It is dissected in a paper up at W3C:

Open Participation ("We")
    citizen engineer:  citizen is a contributor to her space (lists, Web, MUD, FAQ)
Consensus. ("... believe in rough consensus ...")
    is it good enough, does it merit moving on, are there show stoppers?
No Kings ("... reject kings, presidents and voting.")
    consensus mediated by Elders, citizen engineers who built the space and institutions others inhabit.
Running Code / Implementation ("... believe ... in running code.")
    all policy is tested by both its support and formulation through implementation

I do think that having the conference mediated by kings (okay, that’s a loaded word isn’t it?) would ensure the successful growth of the Code4Lib conferences more reliably than just having better documentation would. Maybe. But, on the other hand, I’m okay if we have a few failures (e.g., have a conference or two that is a real stinker). We’ll learn from these (with good communication) just like we learn from making programming mistakes or faulty assumptions in our code. If we don’t learn and Code4Lib disappears that’s okay too. It was what it was and lived as long as it was useful.

I think though that creating a centralized structure that manages things from the top down will be a mistake for the group. I like the idea of having the local folks who are going to plan and host the conference take more of the responsibility. This doesn’t mean they have to take it all (especially if they don’t want to). I think this though will give each conference its own flavor (and that’s a good thing). If we rely on a centralized group to make consistent decisions year after year, things will go along smoothly enough but we will lose, in my opinion, some of the uniqueness of the conference (if it can be said to have characteristics after just a couple of years).

Maybe people would prefer the consistency. Maybe people want Code4Lib to become a force in the library community. I don’t. I’m happy (as happy can be) with the other professional organizations. Yes, they have their share of problems, but I don’t think creating a new professional organization is going to solve any of these. Anyway, enough crazy rambling…

I’ve been talking with a friend recently, who is a relative newcomer to the code4lib channel, about the “insular” nature of the group (I agree with his assessment, but I also think code4libbers try to be friendly and reach out when new folks enter — some of the problem is just related to group dynamics and especially to groups that have a high context barrier (see below)). Also recently, number 4 in Caveat Lector’s list of Fifty ways to lose your techies generated some interesting discussion in the channel. I’m not aware of anyone who has actually been “sent into” the code4lib channel, but I think the uncomfortableness mentioned in that post is something many people (male or female) might feel when first encountering the group.

So, to start, I don’t think the informal aspect of code4lib can be emphasized enough. Anyone entering the channel looking only for intellectual conversations on the directions of libraries, how to hack their ILS, or which programming language would be the best to learn to start simplifying their daily tasks is going to be disappointed and, in a way, that is disappointing. Wouldn’t it be nice if there was a library coder support group that could help people with just a little experience improve their skillsets or start thinking about library issues in different ways? There are a lot of really knowledgeable and smart people in the channel and I think there is a real need for this outreach in libraryland… what my friend jokingly called Code4libmobile (a name he downplayed but I actually like).

This is not to say this doesn’t happen. People do pop into the channel and ask about a software package for libraries. Often one of the authors, or at least another user, will be in the channel and be able to help out with the problem. Also, regulars in the channel often ask questions and learn a lot from the experiences of others in the channel. There is a great sharing of knowledge that goes on, but it is not the only thing that goes on. There are a lot of “in” jokes and things that may not make sense to someone not “indoctrinated” into the code4lib way. Recently, there has been an effort to counter this problem by creating a #code4lib FAQ. It tries to explain some of the “in” jokes (often revolving around the chat room bot, panizzi) to break down some of the barriers between the old timers and newcomers (does even using those labels create a barrier, recognize one, or neither?)

I’ve always like the Marx quip that “I wouldn’t want to join any group that would have me as a member.” I’m a polite person (I think) and try to be friendly to everyone I meet, but there is also a side of me that really dislikes group dynamics. We can psycho-analyze this away to me being an introvert by nature, the fact that I have red hair and was picked on as a child by the cool kids, or whatever. What I’m getting at, though, is that any group that I join I also try to continue to look at from a third party perspective (in as much as this is possible). To be honest, group dynamics, when the people in the group start exhibiting the same behaviors, saying the same things, etc., also scare me a bit — though I think it is natural for people in a group to behave this way (I do it myself).

Part of this goes back (okay this post is really turning into a long rambling post about me now) to my father. He is an intercultural communications specialist/consultant and grew up in Japan (as a child of a missionary family). I think it is fair to say that he taught me that culture is relative. That we need to step outside of our own culture to understand others’ (and, at the same time, that we really can’t step outside of our own cultures because they are who we are — there is no objective viewpoint). He also introduced me to Edward Hall, a cultural anthropologist, who suggested that cultures fall on a continuum of “high” to “low” context.

According to Hall, Japanese culture is high(er) context; there is much that is conveyed through non-verbal means. This means that a person who grows up Japanese learns many things about how to act, speak, etc. that aren’t necessarily conveyed as verbal /explicit lessons in their society. The United States, in contrast, is a low context culture. Things, more often than not, are explicitly stated/learned. As an aside (hey, this is already a rambling post anyway), I’ve always been interested in the idea that the culture of the southern U.S. has a much higher context than that of the North’s. It is interesting to look at expectations of interactions from this perspective (but that is another post (probably for another blog)).

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. I think, based on my experiences, that #code4lib is a pretty high context culture. That sounds impossible because after all it is one that is based in large part on text (IRC messages). People in there know each other from the various library conferences, and some of them are even friends outside the channel, but much of the interaction takes place on a virtual level. I guess what I’m suggesting is that groups are often higher context than individuals (Japan is more group oriented and the U.S. is more individualistic — sorry (to all those cultural anthropologists who actually know what they are talking about) for the generalizations). Since #code4lib has been around about two years the group has formed a tightness that may be off putting to new people who enter (though I should also note that the group has grown greatly in recent months).

I guess my ideal for any group would be one that allows expression of ideas (even ones that are offending). I expect groups to have a conscience, too, though. I would hope that offending ideas are addressed (not in that a person is stopped from saying them, but in that a plurality of voices is always allowed and encouraged — and if someone disagrees with something that is said s/he would feel comfortable voicing dissent). I certainly know that some in code4lib have rubbed me the wrong way before (even people I like and respect on most other topics). I hope, though, that by continuing to contribute I shape the group. I think that with #code4lib’s growth the group can only benefit (as long as the lines of communication are kept open between people). The more diverse opinions the better, in my opinion.

So, back to the “what code4lib should be”… given all this, I’m not sure the group is the best place for outreach. This is not to say that the members of the group shouldn’t do these sorts of things. Just that if we do our efforts shouldn’t be “branded” with the code4lib name. I understand the advantage of capitalizing on a name that is becoming more well known (though hardly anywhere near being really well known in the community as a whole). I just think, though, that this is trying to make code4lib into something it is not. I think these other endevours (non-profit, journal, outreach, etc.) really need to be more formal. Anyway, this is all just my personal opinion (I do not speak for the group as a whole — noone does in my opinion). It is just something that has been on my mind lately (as I watch #code4lib continue to grow) so I thought I’d throw it out there. Comments, criticisms, throwing things at me are welcome…