On Dec 1, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Ross Singer wrote:

> As unwilling commissioner of elections, I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I say,
> to hear of improprieties with the voting process.

It could be worse ... I'm an unwilling elected official.  (and the re-election
for my third term is next month ... anyone want to move to Upper Marlboro,
MD, so they can run against me?  I think you still have about a week to
make the 30 day residency deadline)

(maybe 'unwilling' is the wrong word, before this shows up in the
local newspaper ... I'll do it, but I think someone with more free time
to commit might be able to do a better job)


> That said, I'm not shocked (and we've seen it before).
> 
> I am absolutely opposed to:
> 
> 1) Setting weights on voting.  0 is just as valid a vote as 3.
> 2) Publicly shaming the offenders in Code4Lib.  If you run across
> impropriety in a forum, make a friendly, yet firm, reminder that
> ballot stuffing is unethical, undemocratic and tears at the fabric
> that is Code4Lib.  Sometimes it just takes a simple reminder for
> people to realize what they're doing is wrong (it certainly works for
> me).
> 3) Selection committees.  We are, as Dre points out,
> anarcho-democratic as our core.  anarcho-bureaucratic just sounds
> silly.

It'd be (anarcho-)?republican, as you'd have a smaller body that's
appointed or elected to make the decisions.


> This current situation is largely our doing.  We even publicly said
> that "getting your proposal voted in is the backdoor into the
> conference".  The first allotment of spaces sold out in an hour.  This
> is, literally, the only way that a person that was not able to
> register and is buried on the wait list is going to get in.  And we've
> basically told them that.

Perhaps if registration were done after the talk selection, this wouldn't
be a problem?   Or some sort of lottery, rather than first-come-first served?

... and the real way to ensure a slot is to help with the conference
planning ... if you've agreed to man the table where people get their
badges, they normally let you come.


> One thing I would be open to is to put a disclaimer splash page before
> any ballot (only to be seen the first time a person votes) briefly
> explaining how the ballot works and to mention that ballot stuffing is
> "unethical, undemocratic and tears at the fabric that is Code4Lib" or
> some such.  I would welcome contributions to the wording.
> 
> What would people think about that?

I'd like to know if this is even a problem -- is there some way to
tell if we have people who only voted for one paper?

(although, just putting that as a restriction just makes 'em 
likely to vote for a few random ones, which really does taint
the whole process)

-Joe