I think this calls for an unwritten rule engine.
On Dec 1, 2011 10:22 PM, "Ross Singer" <[log in to unmask]> 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 <[log in to unmask]> 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:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Bohyun Kim
> > Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 4:24 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > 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:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Rochkind
> > Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 3:48 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > 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
> >> [log in to unmask]
> >> 509-359-6395
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> >> Of Karen Coyle
> >> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 11:56 AM
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> 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
>
