On Dec 1, 2011, at 10:29 AM, Ross Singer wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Richard, Joel M <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> I feel this whole situation has tainted things somewhat. :(
>> 
> 
> Let's not blow things out of proportion.  The aforementioned
> wrong-doing actually seems pretty innocent (there is backstory in the
> IRC channel, I'm not going to bring it up here).  There is a valid
> case for advertising interest in your talks (or location, or t-shirt
> design, etc.), especially in an extremely crowded field, and we've
> never explicitly set a policy around what is appropriate and what
> isn't.  I think a simple edit on the part of the "accused" would clear
> up any ambiguity of intention.
> 
> Our one "known" incident was handled privately, but didn't really
> cause us to address the potential for impropriety.
> 
> We seem to have quite a bit of support for the splash page.  If people
> will help me draft up the wording -- ideally something we can point to
> when we want to guide people in the right direction in other forums --
> I think we can put this issue to bed.

It depends on how harsh you want be ... I mean, if you're on the
fence about ballot stuffing, you could go with something like:

	When voting, we expect you to actually read through the list,
	and pick the best ones.  So yes, go ahead and vote for your
	friends and colleagues, but also read through the others
	to find other equally good proposals.

-Joe