As another participant in the meeting, here is my recollection and what I was thinking at the meeting:

However, if my memory serves me correctly (and sometimes it doesn't), I think that the thought was that the OSS portal would have a different objective than oss4lib, though their objectives would be related. In fact, the hope was that the cooperitive competition (or collaboration) between the two would work to make both better - features built in one could also be added to the other, and vice-versa.

Jeremy is right on target. What we thought would help promoting the current wealth of OSS tools and projects in libraries is to build on what Dan has been doing with OSS4Lib and add the advocate/promotion aspect to it.  This new site could/should concentrate on building case studies or examples of how these tools are used in the libraries. We should not attempt to rate or view the software.

Most of the management type wants to know who else is using it before they adopt/buy a software package.  They need to know there are some kind of "peer support" before they jump in. If we have a place where libraries can see what other libraries of their kinds are doing with particular OSS applications, it may convince them to give it a try.

Knowing a tool exists and other big libraries have adopted it may not be good enough for smaller libraries to do the same since the typical response is that "We can't do it because we are different. We don't have the staff to maintain this."

Dan in his first note in
this thread said "Art and I poked around with some options for swapping out
the site's backend with one of the standard blog tools a little while back,
but I didn't get around to finishing it up.

Some options for swapping out the site's backend is a good idea. I don't see the need to reinvent the wheel, however, I do see the need to repackage it for promotional purpose. The converted can go straight to the project list, the "would be adopters" need more evidence to build up their confidence.

Well, I don't get it (but then there are lots of things I do not get :)  I
liked some of the feature that are there, but I can't help but compare it to oss4lib--with less projects and news. 

But what is further interesting to me is that when I followed the links to
the report from the October meeting DLF convened it says that this is what they
were going to do.  And so that they did it isn;t so surprising as why they
thought they needed to reinvent the oss4lib wheel.  As those using free and open
source software in libraries is a small audience, it doesn't make sense to me to fracture it with sites that duplicate content.  Maybe some of the new
features are needed, but that is a reason to update oss4lib (with its 3-4 years of building a name) and not to start from scratch. 

Oh well, we library-types often put our efforts into misguided areas (at
least i do--starting with getting that MLIS ;-)
--matt

p.s. Tell Chuck Norris to move the nuclear warhead to Dallas.
(Dan, it is time to listen to the _other_ voices in your head.)


---------------------------------------------------
Matt Wilcox, Epidemiology & Public Health Librarian,
Director of Academic Technology
Yale Epidemiology & Public Health Library
matthew.wilcox@yale.edu  
voice: 203-785-5680 | fax: 203-785-4998
60 College St., Box 208034, New Haven, CT 06520-8034

****************************************
Rachel J. Cheng
Associate University Librarian
Wesleyan University
Middletown, CT 06459
Email: jcheng@wesleyan.edu
Fax: 860-685-3910
Tel: 860-685-3887