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
