> 1. The name. I like Icehouse Community Excellence Award, because it emphasizes that the award is coming from the Community and it indicates that the award is for Excellence, not just the best of whatever happens to be out there. It can easily be abbreviated ICE Award for the program and so forth, and it can be spelled out in full on the award itself to show what it's about. In addition to the name, we should have a short, one sentence description of what the award is about. Something like, "The Icehouse Community Excellence Award is given to the fan-designed pyramid game from the previous year most worthy of professional publication." When people are evaluating and voting on their choice for winner, they can use that as their benchmark. > 2. The number of awards. I think there should be one award. The finalist non-winners can call themselves finalists, but would not get any award. Or maybe we could give them a certificate or something if people really want to give out more than one thing. And again, I think there should be three finalists, so one winnner (or none if NOTA wins) and two (or three) non-winning finalists. > 3. The design of the awards. For practical purposes, maybe we should consider something that's easy to mail. What's the likelihood that the winner will actually be present to accept? But if somebody's willing to foot the bill, I have no objection to something bigger and bolder as long as it's tasteful. Also, for what it's worth, I am scheduled to be the TD (second in command of the lab) when the award is presented on Saturday at 4:00pm. So, either I could give out the award, or I could introduce Bryan to give out the award. Either way, the non-presenter can accept on behalf of the winner if the winner is not there.