Hi - the fact that some people felt left out was part of my motivation for writing this a while back:
http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/How_to_hack_code4lib
It's not really rules, but an approach that I found helpful to getting into the community.
Declan
-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ross Singer
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 7:22 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Unwritten Rules, formerly Pandering for votes for code4lib sessions
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
