IT'S INSANE, THIS VOTE'S TAINT. -Mike
P.S. Hat tip to Bob & David. On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 22:25, Simon Spero <s...@unc.edu> wrote: > I think this calls for an unwritten rule engine. > On Dec 1, 2011 10:22 PM, "Ross Singer" <rossfsin...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I think the point of the hubbub today is trying to articulate the rule that >> should be written. >> >> Nobody is being excluded: we make things up as they go along and anybody is >> welcome to throw in their opinion. >> >> That said, there's over 5 years of this process already in place. Very >> little is written, but there is a lot of momentum. Much of it is >> arbitrary. Some may actually be capricious. Most is probably not even >> considered, though; it's a really informal group. >> >> What I'm trying to say is that there are things that should be documented. >> We don't necessarily know what they are or how they should read. If you >> find something that really should be written down, throw it out there (and >> be willing to solicit opinions, synthesize them and write them down). >> >> -Ross. >> >> On Thursday, December 1, 2011, Wilfred Drew <dr...@tc3.edu> wrote: >> > It is unwritten rules that lead people to feel excluded from a group. >> How can the C4L group make other feel part of the group if the "important" >> rules are unwritten? That is what makes the group appear elitist to >> outsiders or newbies. >> > >> > Bill Drew >> > Sort of a newbie but maybe not >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of >> Bohyun Kim >> > Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 4:24 PM >> > To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU >> > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Unwritten Rules, formerly Pandering for votes for >> code4lib sessions >> > >> > So this was what "pandering a vote" meant all along? And I guess you are >> supposed to know this to count as a c4l community member? Unwritten rules >> indeed... >> > >> > ~Bohyun >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of >> Jonathan Rochkind >> > Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 3:48 PM >> > To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU >> > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Unwritten Rules, formerly Pandering for votes for >> code4lib sessions >> > >> > I'm still not even sure why people think the blog post violated any >> unwritten rules or expectations. I agree that people kind of unreasonably >> raked the author over the coals here. >> > >> > I think _maybe_ under some interpretations it's borderline (some of those >> interpretations are those of the READERS of the blog and how they respond, >> which the author has limited control over), and DO think a splash page on >> voting with a few sentences on expectations for who votes, why, and how, >> would be a very good thing for us to have _in general_, so this is useful >> for bringing up that idea (nice idea rsinger). >> > >> > But as a thought experiment, let's say I jrochkind had a proposal, and >> posted to my blog "Hey, if you're thinking about going to the conf, >> consider voting to help make the conf! If you're voting, please consider my >> proposal, here's why I think it's important." >> > >> > Would you consider that inappropriate too? If not, please elucidate the >> differences, and we'll be that much closer to understanding/developing >> consensual community expectations here. >> > >> > Right now, I think some things some of you all think are obvious are far >> from obvious to others, even others you assume it would be obvious to. >> > >> > On 12/1/2011 3:33 PM, Munson, Doris wrote: >> >> As a relative newcomer to this list, I second the idea that any >> offenders be contacted off list with an explanation of any unwritten rules >> they unknowingly violate. I suggest this becomes one of c4l's unwritten >> rules. >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Doris >> >> >> >> Doris Munson >> >> Systems/Reference Librarian >> >> Eastern Washington University >> >> dmun...@ewu.edu >> >> 509-359-6395 >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf >> >> Of Karen Coyle >> >> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 11:56 AM >> >> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU >> >> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Pandering for votes for code4lib sessions >> >> >> >> Responding to the thread and not this specific email... >> >> >> >> This conversation has an unfortunate subtext of "us v. them." It is >> >> the case that c4l is a small-ish group that has a particular >> >> personality, and folks really care about that. And the c4l conference >> >> (which I only attended once) has a great feel about it of folks >> >> sharing ideas (and beer). >> >> >> >> The problem with that kind of chummy-ness is that it makes it hard for >> >> newcomers or folks who aren't native c4l-ers to participate, either in >> >> the conference or in the various ways that c4l-ers communicate. To >> >> then take someone to task for "violating" an unwritten rule of that >> >> culture really does not seem fair, and the unfortunate use of language >> >> ("pandering"), not to mention the length of this thread, is likely to >> >> discourage enthusiastic newcomers in the future. If c4l is open to new >> >> participants and new ideas, some acceptance of differences in style >> >> must be tolerated. Where there isn't a tolerance, any rules must be >> >> made clear. "Be just like us" isn't such a rule. >> >> >> >> I personally feel that the reaction to the alleged offense is over the >> >> top. If this has happened before, I don't recall this kind of >> >> reaction. If c4l were a Marxist organization this is the point where >> >> one could call for an intense round of self-study and auto-criticism. >> >> Something h >> >