+1 On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Fleming, Declan <dflem...@ucsd.edu> wrote: > +1 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Ross > Singer > Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 5:47 AM > To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Pandering for votes for code4lib sessions > > As unwilling commissioner of elections, I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I say, to hear > of improprieties with the voting process. > > That said, I'm not shocked (and we've seen it before). > > I am absolutely opposed to: > > 1) Setting weights on voting. 0 is just as valid a vote as 3. > 2) Publicly shaming the offenders in Code4Lib. If you run across impropriety > in a forum, make a friendly, yet firm, reminder that ballot stuffing is > unethical, undemocratic and tears at the fabric that is Code4Lib. Sometimes > it just takes a simple reminder for people to realize what they're doing is > wrong (it certainly works for me). > 3) Selection committees. We are, as Dre points out, anarcho-democratic as > our core. anarcho-bureaucratic just sounds silly. > > This current situation is largely our doing. We even publicly said that > "getting your proposal voted in is the backdoor into the conference". The > first allotment of spaces sold out in an hour. This is, literally, the only > way that a person that was not able to register and is buried on the wait > list is going to get in. And we've basically told them that. > > One thing I would be open to is to put a disclaimer splash page before any > ballot (only to be seen the first time a person votes) briefly explaining how > the ballot works and to mention that ballot stuffing is "unethical, > undemocratic and tears at the fabric that is Code4Lib" or some such. I would > welcome contributions to the wording. > > What would people think about that? > > -Ross. > > On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Richard, Joel M <richar...@si.edu> wrote: >> I disagree with this suggestion. Personally I vote for only those I find >> interesting and useful to me, but I don't put an response for every talk >> listed. I only respond on those I'm interested. Everyone else gets 0 points. >> I would expect that others do this, too. Katherine's suggestion also puts an >> burden on those who are legitimately participating while doing nothing to >> prevent those who are misbehaving. >> >> I like Edwards's suggestions, which are easy to implement and don't really >> impact the process that much. >> >> Personally, I believe that the proper response to this is to: >> >> 1. Publicly shame those who are participating in this. :) 2. Delete >> their votes, or at least those you can identify. >> 3. Disqualify the person who is receiving illegitimate votes. See #1. >> 4. Eliminate voting altogether and have a committee of 10-15 people from the >> community select from the proposed talks. Isn't this what other conferences >> do? >> >> In the end, the conference organizers can invite whoever they want to speak. >> The voting ends up being a courtesy to the rest of us. >> >> --Joel >> >> Joel Richard >> Lead Web Developer, Web Services Department Smithsonian Institution >> Libraries | http://www.sil.si.edu/ >> (202) 633-1706 | richar...@si.edu >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Dec 1, 2011, at 8:06 AM, Lynch,Katherine wrote: >> >>> I was actually going to suggest just this, Kåre! Another way to >>> handle it, or perhaps an additional way, would be give a user's votes >>> a certain amount of weight proportionate to the number of sessions they >>> voted on. >>> So if they evaluated all of them and voted, 100% of their vote gets >>> counted. If they evaluated half, 50%, and so on? Not sure if this >>> is worth the effort, but I know it's worked for various camps that >>> I've been to which fall prey to the same problem. >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> Katherine >>> >>> On 12/1/11 6:55 AM, "Kåre Fiedler Christiansen" >>> <k...@statsbiblioteket.dk> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On >>>>> Behalf Of Michael B. Klein >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>> In any case, I'm interested to see how effective this current "call >>>>> for support" is. >>>> >>>> Me too! >>>> >>>> Could someone with access to the voting data perhaps anonymously >>>> pull out how many voters have given points to only a single talk or two? >>>> >>>> If the problem is indeed real, perhaps simply stating on the page >>>> that you are expected to evaluate _all_ proposals, and not just vote >>>> up a single talk, would help the issue? It might turn away some of >>>> the "wrong voters". Requiring to give out at least, say, 10 points, >>>> could be perhaps be a way to enforce some participation? >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Kåre
-- Daniel Lovins Head of Knowledge Access, Design & Development Knowledge Access & Resource Management Services New York University, Division of Libraries 20 Cooper Square, 3rd floor New York, NY 10003-7112 daniel.lov...@nyu.edu 212-998-2489
