 |
 |
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 5:19 AM, Andreas Orphanides < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > I think imposing strictures on the voting process goes a little bit against > something fundamental about Code4Lib's anarcho-democratic underpinnings. > Agreed. But as the size of the community increases, you eventually get to the point where using popularity as the ultimate gauge waters things down. The thing I've always liked best about c4l is the opportunity to get exposed to questions/things that I didn't know I needed to think about in first place. Word gets around, so if I know that people are working on something that's relevant to what I'm doing, I'll just read up and maybe contact a few knowledgeable people directly. If too many people come just to learn about what interests them, I'm trying to figure out how that doesn't undermine the community since things only work when enough people are contributing whatever they have to offer. To me, the real value of c4l is talking to people who are lit up about something that's totally off my radar -- they help me understand what I need to be interested in. In return, I share cornball ideas which may have applications that would not otherwise be apparent to me or the person I'm talking with. For stuff that's already on my radar, the internet strikes me a handy tool... As the population increases, the weird, difficult to understand, and edgy stuff gets weeded out and if we're not careful, the result will just another online conference. After all, if popularity is the path to the best stuff, Mickey D's serves the best food and Bud Light is the best beer. I don't know what should be done, but the splash screen is a good step if it helps remind people what the real point is. kyle