I would also mention that we generally expect people voting to either 
plan to at least potentially attend the conference, or have a prior 
participation/affiliation/interest in the Code4Lib Community. We're not 
expecting random people to be voting just for the hell of it, or to help 
our a freind with a proposal.

(I also don't think the 'incident' of 'vote pandering' is all that awful 
or there was much reason for the 'perpetrator' to have expected anyone 
would have a problem with it. I do think when we have a system of open 
voting like we have, we should have a statement of what we expect from 
voters, however, that they have to read before voting. Which will keep 
people from accidentally violating community standards they didn't even 
know existed. )

On 12/1/2011 10:40 AM, Joe Hourcle wrote:
> 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
>