LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  December 2011

CODE4LIB December 2011

Subject:

Re: Pandering for votes for code4lib sessions

From:

Ross Singer <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 1 Dec 2011 08:47:03 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (101 lines)

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

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.

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.

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?

-Ross.

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Richard, Joel M <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I disagree with this suggestion. Personally I vote for only those I find interesting and useful to me, but I don't put an response for every talk listed. I only respond on those I'm interested. Everyone else gets 0 points. I would expect that others do this, too. Katherine's suggestion also puts an burden on those who are legitimately participating while doing nothing to prevent those who are misbehaving.
>
> I like Edwards's suggestions, which are easy to implement and don't really impact the process that much.
>
> Personally, I believe that the proper response to this is to:
>
> 1. Publicly shame those who are participating in this. :)
> 2. Delete their votes, or at least those you can identify.
> 3. Disqualify the person who is receiving illegitimate votes. See #1.
> 4. Eliminate voting altogether and have a committee of 10-15 people from the community select from the proposed talks. Isn't this what other conferences do?
>
> In the end, the conference organizers can invite whoever they want to speak. The voting ends up being a courtesy to the rest of us.
>
> --Joel
>
> Joel Richard
> Lead Web Developer, Web Services Department
> Smithsonian Institution Libraries | http://www.sil.si.edu/
> (202) 633-1706 | [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 1, 2011, at 8:06 AM, Lynch,Katherine wrote:
>
>> I was actually going to suggest just this, Kåre!  Another way to handle
>> it, or perhaps an additional way, would be give a user's votes a certain
>> amount of weight proportionate to the number of sessions they voted on.
>> So if they evaluated all of them and voted, 100% of their vote gets
>> counted.  If they evaluated half, 50%, and so on?  Not sure if this is
>> worth the effort, but I know it's worked for various camps that I've been
>> to which fall prey to the same problem.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Katherine
>>
>> On 12/1/11 6:55 AM, "Kåre Fiedler Christiansen" <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>>>> Behalf Of Michael B. Klein
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> In any case, I'm interested to see how effective this current "call
>>>> for
>>>> support" is.
>>>
>>> Me too!
>>>
>>> Could someone with access to the voting data perhaps anonymously pull out
>>> how many voters have given points to only a single talk or two?
>>>
>>> If the problem is indeed real, perhaps simply stating on the page that
>>> you are expected to evaluate _all_ proposals, and not just vote up a
>>> single talk, would help the issue? It might turn away some of the "wrong
>>> voters". Requiring to give out at least, say, 10 points, could be perhaps
>>> be a way to enforce some participation?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Kåre

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager