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 <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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
>>
>
|
