On 05/02/14 16:52, Daniel O'Donnell wrote:
I put GO::DH in tools because I really missed an "other" category, so I wouldn't complain beyond saying there should be an other category
Whereas I would have just not nominated it because it didn't really fit any of the categories. I don't think the categories *should* be all encompassing of DH. Partly because that is impossible, partly because voters would have even more choices, and partly because it would need an 'other' category which would then just become a repository for highly heterogeneous materials. So voting in that category would be comparing apples and elephants, rather than just the apples and oranges that are compared in the current categories.
(and that would be a mild complaint: having been on the receiving end of complaints before, let me emphasise that I think DHAwards is a great achievement, creating value out of nothing on a budget of close to or exactly 0).
For those interested the technical setup, dhawards.org is a mirror of a similarly named sub-domain on my dreamhost.com fully-hosted personal domain. It just mirrors the sub-domain DNS and so it appears at that address but is hosted at the subdomain. Thus the only 'cost' is the domain name registration as part of my dreamhost account. If one was to cost the time... well you don't want to know. I would estimate that any individual member of the nominations committee who actively contributes to the debates and reviewing of the nominations, and advertises it, is probably donating a couple full days of work overall. As the one creating the spreadsheets, anonymising the nominations, setting up the site, forms, prodding the committee, emailing nominated resources, answering feedback, cleansing and tallying votes, etc. I probably spend about 1-2 weeks worth of time. I should probably come up with a slightly better system for display and review of the nominated resources -- currently people mark their votes/notes in a google spreadsheet. (suggestions appreciated.)
It didn't seem like it was for fun, or that it was not-in-English, or that it was a mobilisation effort (i.e. public-facing). I figured in an imperfect world, a Community of Practice is sort of a tool if no better category exists. It fit the narrative definition, anyway.
I could see an argument for Public Audiences (erm, but not _really_ by the definition). But again, we decided to err on the side of including it. But yes, if we had a 'Community of Practice' category this coming year, then it would miss out...not having been created in that year. (As others have argued here.)
And all the members of this list can vote for it and we will be the one tool to rule them all. Mwah hah hah!
Perhaps. I probably shouldn't note this (since it is probably unfair on the others in that category) but you are currently the second runner-up. But that people have seen it, voted for it, learned about it, is hopefully the real benefit. But also I've not gone through a removed duplicate voters yet, so someone who votes for you under lots of different accounts or the same account many times may lower your score. ;-)
-James