] 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
On Dec 1, 2011 8:48 AM, Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
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,
I am offended and disappointed by the Rickrolling suggestion. We are a
group of professionals and should act as such. Resorting to low brow
internet memes only demeans the group, its members, and a profession as a
whole.
The submit button in the script should go to a page where the submitter has
Great, here comes the Troublesome Cataloger
In need for some energizer drink,
ranti.
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Becky Yoose b.yo...@gmail.com wrote:
I am offended and disappointed by the Rickrolling suggestion. We are a
group of professionals and should act as such. Resorting to low
I like the rickroll idea, myself. Why would we inflict cataloging hell on
anyone besides yo_bj?
Oh, wait...
:P
Wafted through cyberspace from my iPad
On Dec 2, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Ranti Junus ranti.ju...@gmail.com wrote:
Great, here comes the Troublesome Cataloger
In need for some
Speaking of cataloging hell, it appears that some non-library entities
have over-jumped on the bandwagon and are proposing, get this, a metadata
scheme consisting of nearly 250 elements to describe information resources
found in virtual environments such as minecraft, second life (does that
still
Doh! Motherscratcher!
\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/
Scot Colford
Web Services Manager
Boston Public Library
scolf...@bpl.org
Phone 617.859.2399
Mobile 617.592.8669
Fax 617.536.7558
On 12/2/11 12:39 PM, Frumkin, Jeremy frumk...@u.library.arizona.edu
wrote:
Speaking of
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
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
I have mixed feelings on the idea of requiring a minimum weight in the
voting process. Vote pandering is definitely a real issue, but I think
imposing strictures on the voting process goes a little bit against
something fundamental about Code4Lib's anarcho-democratic underpinnings. I
think one of
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
Deleting votes is a risky business, and disqualifying the speaker is
somewhat harsh. What would be the criteria for votes eliminated, if we
can't factor the number of sessions they vote for into the process?
Wouldn't giving encouragement to vote on all sessions--even if your vote
is 0--not put a
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
On Dec 1, 2011, at 8:34 AM, Richard, Joel M richar...@si.edu wrote:
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
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 08:47, Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com wrote:
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,
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
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
On Dec 1, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Ross Singer wrote:
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
I too agree that the two things we should do are: present a clear
statement on how session selection works; and craft a statement on
ethics that will be so artful as to actually discourage virtual ballot
box stuffing and not just put evil ideas in folks; heads.
On my part, I have had my dogs sign
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Richard, Joel M richar...@si.edu wrote:
I feel this whole situation has tainted things somewhat. :(
Let's not blow things out of proportion. The aforementioned
wrong-doing actually seems pretty innocent (there is backstory in the
IRC channel, I'm not going to
On Dec 1, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Ross Singer wrote:
As unwilling commissioner of elections, I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I say,
to hear of improprieties with the voting process.
It could be worse ... I'm an unwilling elected official. (and the re-election
for my third term is next month ... anyone want
Also, I should note, that the alleged pandering has not helped them
much, if at all, so far.
-Ross.
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Richard, Joel M richar...@si.edu wrote:
I feel this whole situation has tainted things
On Dec 1, 2011, at 10:29 AM, Ross Singer wrote:
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Richard, Joel M richar...@si.edu wrote:
I feel this whole situation has tainted things somewhat. :(
Let's not blow things out of proportion. The aforementioned
wrong-doing actually seems pretty innocent
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Michael J. Giarlo
leftw...@alumni.rutgers.edu wrote:
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 08:47, Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com wrote:
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
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:35, Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, I should note, that the alleged pandering has not helped them
much, if at all, so far.
And, also also, this happens just about every year with just about
every vote; if Code4Lib is tainted, it happened years ago and
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Tom Keays tomke...@gmail.com wrote:
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,
This is true, and something I didn't even think of. Ballot stuffers don't
seem to be able to have the impact of a good proposal. If they did, some
pretty strange schedules would probably have emerged by now. :)
On 12/1/11 10:35 AM, Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, I should note,
I will speak to this one time and then I am done.
My attempts at advertising the vote were to make more people aware of it
and to get more votes in general. That is the democratic way. In fact
there have been comments added to these posts on our OLE blog from
code4lib members. During my time in
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
Robert, you raise an extremely valid point. Last year we had 129
unique voters for the proposals, roughly unchanged from Asheville
(119). Both cases FAR fewer than the number of delegates (and more
importantly, the number of people that wanted to be delegates).
Now, any citizen of a
I would also mention that we generally expect people voting to either
plan to at least potentially attend the conference, or have a prior
participation/affiliation/interest in the Code4Lib Community. We're not
expecting random people to be voting just for the hell of it, or to help
our a
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 5:19 AM, Andreas Orphanides
andreas_orphani...@ncsu.edu 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
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
I feel this whole situation has tainted things somewhat. :(
This incident appears to have been blown out of proportion.
So to lighten the mood a bit, I offer this doggerel inspired by the above
comment and with apologies to Ed Cobb, et al.:
Tainted Votes
Sometimes I feel I've got to
;-)
-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Doran,
Michael D
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 4:40 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Pandering for votes for code4lib sessions (humor)
I feel this whole situation
Great... now this song is stuck in my head. ;-)
Nicely done, though...
Kevin
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Doran, Michael D do...@uta.edu wrote:
I feel this whole situation has tainted things somewhat. :(
This incident appears to have been blown out of proportion.
So to lighten the mood
I think I like this song, but I won't know for sure until Roy applies
the Seal of Approval.
Maccabee
On 12/1/2011 3:39 PM, Doran, Michael D wrote:
I feel this whole situation has tainted things somewhat. :(
This incident appears to have been blown out of proportion.
So to lighten the mood a
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Pandering for votes for code4lib sessions (humor)
Great... now this song is stuck in my head. ;-)
Nicely done, though...
Kevin
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Doran, Michael D do...@uta.edu wrote:
I feel this whole situation has tainted things somewhat. :(
This incident
So applied.
Roy
On Dec 1, 2011, at 2:20 PM, Maccabee Levine levi...@uwosh.edu wrote:
I think I like this song, but I won't know for sure until Roy applies the
Seal of Approval.
Maccabee
On 12/1/2011 3:39 PM, Doran, Michael D wrote:
I feel this whole situation has tainted things
+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
I think that it's not out of bounds to ask people for c4l votes unless you're
offering tangible rewards in exchange for said votes. Tangible rewards as
used here shall in no circumstance be construed to apply to any offers of beer
or its nonalcoholic equivalent. Non-alcoholic equivalent as used
While I want to stress my position that there is nothing wrong with
advertising your proposal (including the source of this now-too-long
thread), it *would be* out of line to ask everybody in your organization to
vote for your proposal (outside of the exceptional workplace -- such as
Gluejar or
It's also worth noting that the voters (so far) have done a super job. If your
talk is not making the cut, don't take it as a reflection or judgment on you or
your work. It just means that voters want to save you for next year. And if
your talk IS making the cut, it's probably because voters
Hey folks:
I'm not going to be attending code4lib yet again in 2012 (alas), so treat this
with a grain of salt, but I wanted to point out that at least one project is
encouraging their community to sign up for code4lib accounts and vote for their
project's proposals.
This seems rather
IIRC, we've gone around on this before. It's been argued (possibly by me,
but definitely by others) that those *not* attending the con have a stake
in the outcomes, too, what with the streaming and the archiving and whatnot.
I agree that blatant electioneering is a problem -- every year, there
I personally would like one of two things to happen:
1) as Dan suggested, have only people registered for the conference vote.
or
2) have the voting completed before registration.
The reason for #1 had been already outlined by Dan. The reason for #2 is that
it is easier to ask for money from
Heya:
As a non-attendee, I absolutely have a stake in the outcomes of the conference
- that's why I care about how the choices are made and hope that they're made
on the basis of actual interest, not as (say) a shrewd marketing ploy. (I'll
also state that my personal opinion as a non-attendee
47 matches
Mail list logo
