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
dmun...@ewu.edu
509-359-6395
-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Karen
Coyle
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 11:56 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
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 has gone wrong here, and it is just possible that it is c4l
that owes an apology. Not the other way around. I believe that Miss
Manners would have suggested that rather than a public drubbing the
"offender" could have been politely contacted off list with an
explanation of said unwritten rules.
kc
Quoting Dan Scott<dsc...@laurentian.ca>:
Ross:
+1 to the disclaimer splash page. That seems to be the best way to
maintain our faith in humanity to do the right thing.
Dan
