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 >