[pmwiki-users] [pmwiki-devel] Announce: pmwiki-social

J. Meijer commentgg at hotmail.com
Mon Apr 30 22:12:37 CDT 2007


In many ways this has become an open letter to Pm. Read it when you have the time.  


----------------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:41:40 -0500
> From: pmichaud at pobox.com
> Subject: Re: [pmwiki-devel] Announce: pmwiki-social
>  
>  
> [The original post was sent to pmwiki-devel, which is not the
> purpose of the pmwiki-devel list. Please send any followups
> to pmwiki-users.]

That's ok, I just thought the issue concerns anyone wishing to associate themselves with pmwiki more.  

> On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 04:47:49PM +0000, J. Meijer wrote:
> > We need a pmwiki-social list. That's a start to value our members and our
> > community more.  
>  
> Decline. The pmwiki-users list can certainly double as pmwiki-social,
> and has done so in the past. In particular, I have trouble imagining
> posts that would be appropriate for pmwiki-social and inappropriate
> for pmwiki-users.
You want pmwiki-users to function better then? Or not lose value? Afraid people will start to ask questions "off-list"?  

Tegans response is to the point as far as I'm concerned.  

To me it is a product just as pmwiki is. Perhaps more valuable so.  


> > Like what's happening now with Dan isn't his fault, it is
> > a consequence of a community lacking, forcing everything through the
> > semantics of pmwiki-users!
>  
> I disagree with this on several fronts.  
>  
> First, in some ways what is happening with Dan *is* his  
> fault, in that some of his posts go against open-source
> community norms and expectations (likely unintentionally).
>  
> - Open source communities consider forks to be a Bad Thing [1],
> and for all intents and purposes ZAPWiki looks like a fork,
> regardless of whether Dan chooses to call it one.
>
> - Open source communities don't like unsubstantiated claims.  
>
> - Open source communities don't like misdirection (e.g., the
> ongoing confusion between ZAP, Acme, ZAPEngine, ZAPWiki, ...),
> false representations of identity, or other forms of "spin".

Good list. But the list also holds when substituting "Open source communities" by "open source _users_". I.e. it is the users that dictate the norm. It is the developers group ('professional contributors') that orients my focus. They are a different bunch, my peers, having (and in some ways requiring) something more to offer.  

On the topic of forks: I am a fork owner myself. It is frustrating in many ways. Yet I have no *intent* of formally forking, that would require a _substantial_ additional effort. But yes it may happen and I see it as a *good* thing. Code demonstrated is better then code talked about. It is sometimes the only way to substantiate claims.  

So when freely shared and finding a place for oneself within the pmwiki developers/community, what could be the problem? Mild forks (not the ones created from flame wars) are good for open source, regardless if _users_ are somewhat confused. Confusion can of course be avoided. Developers on this list seem more than willing to do so.  

On the subject of misdirection, to me it seems Dan is pointing to common misdirections that have a personal effect on him. But when he turns the spin that is on him, he is suddenly guilty of 'spin'. Sure, you haven't commented on this thread, and as a father have let it go. I can see your point. Yet I don't like seeing it and I feel this is counter-productive and in some way a desire to see blood in order for  to be passed on. I don't think that lesson is worth passing on. Doesn't this bring people down just for the sake of it?  

You know, communities aren't driven entirely by noble impulses. It is hard -if not impossible- to defend oneself of a sudden someone else interpreting you in a way you never envisioned, taking you by the balls so to say. It just isn't the right thing to do but it happens and it often happens with a majority vote. Doesn't make it right though.  

Of course, we mostly all operate on a best effort basis. But especially in this environment it helps _knowing_ who is who. Gush, I didn't know Hans is the silent pmwiki superman he turns out to be (though I did know about the value of his work)!  

A pmwiki-social effort would most certainly help bring the community in focus. That would help make pmwiki to become more visible.  


> In citing the above I'm not at all intending any sort of
> personal attack on Dan, or to imply that he has suspect motives.

True, neither am I. Nor can I affirm Dan, it's conjecture. For that matter people often like to read intent in my phrases. FWIW, often that intent is the opposite of what I knew to be my intent. 


> I'm simply saying that several of his actions, intentional or not,
> can be reasonably construed to violate open-source community
> norms, and it's both natural and appropriate that the community
> expresses its discomfort with perceived threats to the community.

This would be true if other avenues were available, i.e. a conviction only upholds if the defendant had a choice.  

Can we discuss the environment or the conditions we operate in? That is not really the perk of pmwiki-users, with its focus on code, isn't it? Neither is pmwiki-devel, though I think is less problematic.  

Now think of me discussing some relevant aspects of what's basically my life, within the pmwiki-users list. It is totally inappropriate! The thing is, that isn't that totally inappropriate! It all depends. But it is also public, which isn't at all the intent.  

And Dan, if I may use his example for the sake of the argument, is not a _threat_ to the community.  

I think you're putting the community here on a pedastal.  


> Second, I disagree that any of this is being "forced" through the
> semantics of pmwiki-users. PmWiki-users is designed for discussion
> about PmWiki, and that's what is happening.  

Pmwiki-users is is a format and therefore a force. The community is only allowed to talk pmwiki in order to comply with the format. There are other wider -social- needs, they are not addressed.  

I am pleased to see you talk about design. It is the design, though common, that is nevertheless flawed. Pmwiki-social will *not* resolve that, it is just a single tool required to bootstrap others yet to be developed.  


> In another perspective, Dan has commented several times that
> he feels a forum is superior to a mailing list for answering
> these sorts of questions. Taking Dan at his word, perhaps  
> everyone would be better served if there were a ZAP forum  
> somewhere, and then Dan could simply direct any questions  
> regarding ZAP, Acme, etc. could simply be directed to the forum,
> without having to repeat his answers on the list.

I'm not arguing Dan needs me to be a chaperone, nor do I wish to comment much on his actions (I think he does pretty well). Really this is about the community itself and how it is organized. So this is about Pm designing it. And as I understand you, this is no attack. I'm just trying to make you see, there is more to pmwiki than just code.  

We are human beings. We need to know where we come from. That brings about a constructive side. It can't be a public thing someone can google later on.  


> > So, _please_, stop treating Dan as some alien. Give him a place. His needs
> > represent the needs of many *contributors*, by being of the unselfish
> > category. [...] So I confront Pm with the (passive) suppression of  
> > social interaction.  
> I think I'm innocent on this charge, but I'll let my past actions
> (or non-actions) speak for themselves.  

I have no intention to charge. I have the intent to highlight mechanisms that result in behaviour. That is a design and it is essentially within your responsibility, so I can only ask and pray for you or others to hear and understand me.  
In your case it is kind of unusual for you if you do. Because no other community has your level of capability behind it.  
For others on the list my words are just an appeal to reflect and see. Of course Dan in turn could resist the temptation and maybe he should. But it wouldn't be Dan right in the middle and animating pmwiki development :)  

> I'll also note that Dan's posts don't seem to make this claim --  
> he seems to feel that I've been sufficiently supportive of his efforts.

I did not attack (or take aim on!) you, even if my words seem to imply this. You know, Pm is at the heart of things, even if he shouldn't be.  

On topic: could you summarize Dan's efforts? Do you think the disruptions on the list are just about code? No, you stated the problem is with Dan. Do we need to discuss this on this list?  

I know, even if you agree they are not about code, you stilll think that doesn't mean I am right suggesting pmwiki-social. Nor am I trying to say that.  


> > Again, we need to build more then pmwiki, we need to build a  
> > community. Let's be serious about this.  
>  
> We _have_ a community. Several people have commented about this
> on the mailing lists. The community we have may not be 100% of
> what everyone wants... but then that's the nature of an open community.
> And any sort of argument or heated discussion is an indication that
> people are taking it seriously.

Yes!  

But the outcome what will it be? You know, before Neo there were several failed attempts and the Matrix was reset. Pm continues as usual?  

No I do not imply to lowly punch you in the stomach. There is a real interest rolling here and it has to do with identity. As I said:

> > Open-source isn't all roses, especially for the international developers,
> > as all credit and ownership flows to english-language users. Not only the
> > code, but also the community itself.
>  
> I'm not exactly sure where this is directed.

I repeat I am not taking aim at anyone in particular. If I do, I apoligize. If it is directed at something, it surely must concern the Return On Investment (ROI) for any given contributor.  

I refer to international developers, because I don't see how to make an open source project successful without some legal basis in the US, and without some community support from the US (and other english-language speaking countries). The sum result is that anything produced outside of this gets sucked into US-based projects. Where particpants from this base tend to have a positive ROI, international developers have a much harder time: they need to invest more and get less ROI back. A simple matter of distance. They have a harder time and are more volatile. They depend more on the community.  

For example, when I make a recipy, the effort I have to make to make it available (publish) is substantially larger then anyone publishing it from the US. It begins with writing a translation for myself (a dread), where the US variant just puts $[..] around things. Then there's the publishing to an english community. It is harder to get a point across and there is mostly no way to protect one's rights. It is all "Pm". And then the recipy gets superseeded by something in the core we can't touch.  

And thank you for being open and responsive on this point of rights and contributions, including here, now. But I hope you see, you get some ROI. And is this really a case of me just being jealous?  

Also, in some cases, international contributors don't even have ADSL or a job in IT, so they need to fight just to keep the channel open.  

> > Regardless of any opinion on Dan with respect to him responding in
> > _personal_ mode (a God given right if you ask me), he is a phenomenon and
> > has a vision most others tend to hide. Please do not provoke or measure
> > him to whatever standard, as he already lives by them. The very act is
> > therefore provocative, yet you do not seem to understand this. Dan needs
> > to respond in personal mode, there is no intent (there are only motives)
> > to 'hammer' on his part.
>  
> Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander... this very post
> seems to be asking that others refrain from expressing opinions
> on pmwiki-users, or ascribing intent to what others have written.

[...]

I feel culturally invoked here, yet I don't know where you are taking me, nor do I feel I can respond. I take this is ad hominem then? You're undoubtedly smarter at this and have seemingly infinite memory.  

I recall Ben Wilson's quote: "Words are the only thing which will last forever" (Churchill) and I could take offense. Isn't it so that people who think so have a battle in mind? That battle must last forever then?? Churchill be exempted, for he was in a seemingly(?) eternal battle.  

In the same manner I resent many battles and I resent a list that values battles. Technical developments indeed fill a need in resolving battles. Words then, don't mean a thing to me. Solutions and tools do. They are also words, on a metalevel.  

-

If I ask anything, I ask it basically without authority. I can only hope to be heard and that what I say opens an eye. If there is an accusation, let it descend from heaven and not hell.  


> [The original post was sent to pmwiki-devel, which is not the
> purpose of the pmwiki-devel list. Please send any followups
> to pmwiki-users.]
>  
> Pm----------------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:41:40 -0500
> From: pmichaud at pobox.com
> Subject: Re: [pmwiki-devel] Announce: pmwiki-social
>  
>  
> [The original post was sent to pmwiki-devel, which is not the
> purpose of the pmwiki-devel list. Please send any followups
> to pmwiki-users.]

That's ok, I just thought the issue concerns anyone wishing to associate themselves with pmwiki more.  

> On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 04:47:49PM +0000, J. Meijer wrote:
> > We need a pmwiki-social list. That's a start to value our members and our
> > community more.  
>  
> Decline. The pmwiki-users list can certainly double as pmwiki-social,
> and has done so in the past. In particular, I have trouble imagining
> posts that would be appropriate for pmwiki-social and inappropriate
> for pmwiki-users.
You want pmwiki-users to function better then? Or not lose value? Afraid people will start to ask questions "off-list"?  

Tegans response is to the point as far as I'm concerned.  

To me it is a product just as pmwiki is. Perhaps more valuable so.  


> > Like what's happening now with Dan isn't his fault, it is
> > a consequence of a community lacking, forcing everything through the
> > semantics of pmwiki-users!
>  
> I disagree with this on several fronts.  
>  
> First, in some ways what is happening with Dan *is* his  
> fault, in that some of his posts go against open-source
> community norms and expectations (likely unintentionally).
>  
> - Open source communities consider forks to be a Bad Thing [1],
> and for all intents and purposes ZAPWiki looks like a fork,
> regardless of whether Dan chooses to call it one.
>
> - Open source communities don't like unsubstantiated claims.  
>
> - Open source communities don't like misdirection (e.g., the
> ongoing confusion between ZAP, Acme, ZAPEngine, ZAPWiki, ...),
> false representations of identity, or other forms of "spin".

Good list. But the list also holds when substituting "Open source communities" by "open source _users_". I.e. it is the users that dictate the norm. It is the developers group ('professional contributors') that orients my focus. They are a different bunch, having (and in some ways requiring) something more to offer.  

I am a fork owner myself. Yet I have no *intent* of formally forking, that would require a _substantial_ additional effort. But yes it may happen and I see it is a *good* thing. Code demonstrated is better then code talked about. It is sometimes the only way to substantiate claims.  

So when freely shared and finding a place for oneself within the pmwiki developers/community, what could be the problem? Mild forks (not the ones created from flame wars) are good for open source, regardless if _users_ are somewhat confused. Confusion can of course be avoided. Developers on this list seem more than willing to do so.  

On the subject of misdirection, to me it seems Dan is pointing to misdirections that have a personal effect on him. But when he turns the spin on him, he is suddenly guilty of 'spin'. Sure, you haven't commented on this, and as a good father have let it go. Yet I don't like seeing it and I feel this is counter-productive and in some way a desire to see blood in order for  to be passed on. I don't think that lesson is worth passing on. Doesn't this bring people down just for the sake of it?  

You know, communities aren't driven entirely by noble impulses. It is hard -if not impossible- to defend oneself of a sudden someone else interpreting you in a way you never envisioned, taking you by the balls so to say. It just isn't the right thing to do but it happens and it often happens with a majority vote. Doesn't make it right though.  

Of course, we mostly all operate on a best effort basis. But especially in this environment it helps _knowing_ who is who. Gush, I didn't know Hans is the pmwiki superman he turns out to be (though I did know about the value of his work)!  

A pmwiki-social effort would most certainly help bring the community in focus. That would help make pmwiki to become more visible.  


> In citing the above I'm not at all intending any sort of
> personal attack on Dan, or to imply that he has suspect motives.

True, neither am I. People often like to read intent in my phrases. FWIW, often that intent is something the opposite of what I knew to be my intent.  


> I'm simply saying that several of his actions, intentional or not,
> can be reasonably construed to violate open-source community
> norms, and it's both natural and appropriate that the community
> expresses its discomfort with perceived threats to the community.

This would be true if other avenues were available. Can we discuss the environment or the conditions we operate in? That is not really the perk of pmwiki-users, with its focus on code, isn't it? Neither is pmwiki-devel, though I think is less problematic.  

Now think of me discussing my life within the pmwiki-users list. It is totally inappropriate! The thing is, that isn't that totally inappropriate! It all depends.  

And Dan, if I may use his example for the sake of the argument, is not a _threat_ to the community.  

I think you're putting the community here on a pedastal.  


> Second, I disagree that any of this is being "forced" through the
> semantics of pmwiki-users. PmWiki-users is designed for discussion
> about PmWiki, and that's what is happening.  

That is a force. The community is only allowed to talk pmwiki in order to comply with the format. There are other wider -social- needs.  


> In another perspective, Dan has commented several times that
> he feels a forum is superior to a mailing list for answering
> these sorts of questions. Taking Dan at his word, perhaps  
> everyone would be better served if there were a ZAP forum  
> somewhere, and then Dan could simply direct any questions  
> regarding ZAP, Acme, etc. could simply be directed to the forum,
> without having to repeat his answers on the list.

i'm not arguing Dan needs me to be a chaperone, nor do I wish to comment much on his actions (I think he does pretty well). Really this is about the community itself and how it is organized. This is about Pm. And as I understand you, this is no attack. I'm just trying to make you see, there is more to pmwiki than just code.  

We are human beings. We need to know where we come from. That brings about a constructive side. It can't be a public thing someone can google later on.  


> > So, _please_, stop treating Dan as some alien. Give him a place. His needs
> > represent the needs of many *contributors*, by being of the unselfish
> > category. [...] So I confront Pm with the (passive) suppression of  
> > social interaction.  
> I think I'm innocent on this charge, but I'll let my past actions
> (or non-actions) speak for themselves.  

I have no intention to charge. I have the intent to highlight mechanisms that result in behaviour. That is a design and it is essentially within your responsibility, so I can only ask and pray for you to hear me. And it is kind of unusual for you if you do.  

> I'll also note that Dan's posts don't seem to make this claim --  
> he seems to feel that I've been sufficiently supportive of his efforts.

I did not attack (or take aim!) on you, even if mywords seeem to imply this. You know, Pm is at the heart of things, even if he shouldn't be.  

On topic: could you summarize Dan's efforts? Do you think the disruptions on the list are just about code?  

I know, even if you agree they are not, you stilll think that doesn't mean I am right. Nor am I trying to say that.  


> > Again, we need to build more then pmwiki, we need to build a  
> > community. Let's be serious about this.  
>  
> We _have_ a community. Several people have commented about this
> on the mailing lists. The community we have may not be 100% of
> what everyone wants... but then that's the nature of an open community.
> And any sort of argument or heated discussion is an indication that
> people are taking it seriously.

Yes!  

But the outcome what will it be? You know, before Neo there were several failed attempts and the Matrix was reset. Pm continues as usual?  

No I do not imply to lowly punch you in the stomach. There is a real interest rolling here and it has to do with identity. As I said:

> > Open-source isn't all roses, especially for the international developers,
> > as all credit and ownership flows to english-language users. Not only the
> > code, but also the community itself.
>  
> I'm not exactly sure where this is directed.

I repeat I am not taking aim at anyone in particular. If I do, I apoligize. If it is directed at something, it surely must concern the Return On Investment (ROI) for a contributor.  

I refer to international developers, because I don't see how to make an open source project successful without some legal basis in the US, and without some community support from the US (and other english-language speaking countries). The sum result is that anything produced outside of this gets sucked into US-based projects. Where they tend to have a positive ROI, international developers have a much harder time: they need to invest more and get less ROI back. A simple matter of distance.  

As an example, when I make a recipy, the effort I have to make to make it available (publish) is substantially larger then anyone publishing it from the US. It begins with writing a translation (a dread), where the US variant just puts $[..] around things. Then there's the publishing to an english community. It is harder to get a point across and there is mostly no way to protect one's ownership. In a sense it is all "Pm".  

And thank you for being open and responsive on this point, including here. But I hope you see you get some ROI. I'm just jealous though ;)  

Also, in some cases, international contributors don't even have ADSL or a job in IT.  

> > Regardless of any opinion on Dan with respect to him responding in
> > _personal_ mode (a God given right if you ask me), he is a phenomenon and
> > has a vision most others tend to hide. Please do not provoke or measure
> > him to whatever standard, as he already lives by them. The very act is
> > therefore provocative, yet you do not seem to understand this. Dan needs
> > to respond in personal mode, there is no intent (there are only motives)
> > to 'hammer' on his part.
>  
> Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander... this very post
> seems to be asking that others refrain from expressing opinions
> on pmwiki-users, or ascribing intent to what others have written.

[...]

I feel culturally invoked here, yet I don't know where you are taking me, nor do I feel I can respond. I take this is ad hominem then? You're undoubtedly smarter at this and have seemingly infinite memory.  

I recall Ben Wilson's quote: "Words are the only thing which will last forever" (Churchill) and I could take offense. Isn't it so that people who think so have a battle in mind? That battle must last forever then?? Churchill be exempted, for he was in a seemingly(?) eternal battle.  

In the same manner I resent many battles and I resent a list that values battles. Technical developments indeed fill a need in resolving battles. Words then, don't mean a thing to me. Solutions and tools do. They are also words, on a metalevel.  

-

If I ask anything, I ask it basically without authority. I can only hope to be heard and that what I say opens an eye. If there is an accusation, let it descend from heaven and not hell.  


> [The original post was sent to pmwiki-devel, which is not the
> purpose of the pmwiki-devel list. Please send any followups
> to pmwiki-users.]
>  
> Pm


I appeal to PmWiki Philosophy :) "In general PmWiki features are implemented in response to specific needs, rather than because someone identifies something that "might be useful".".  


You know what typically happens? The messenger gets shot for being an indian and then the feature gets implemented.  

Back in pmwiki 1 I suggested _please_ get rid of the line-number system that underlied the markup sequence. You did and created the fabulous Markup() function. But I got a negative response. But you know just as well as I do, that I got a positive response!  

Yet at some point it seems smarter to be an american and not the indian. As far americans are concerned an indian should simply known that it is against the law to be an indian. But I can only say: well thank you.  

I say: make a home for the community and let it rule itself. Lots of good people, don't need you chaperoning. Pmwiki community is essentially self-moderated. But this doesn't mean there is no need. Instead, see the community you 'created' thrive. It may just about be the *most important thing* to come "out of" PmWiki.  

[+That should be just about the major thrill anyone can get out of life+]  

So that's it Pm, this turns to you. It is a wonderful chance at the birth of a community. That basically doesn't care about Pmwiki. It so just happens that it does. Don't think that I'll start some pmwiki-social fork here. It just doesn't work.  

The presence of a pmwiki-social means that, on the pmwiki-users or devel list, we can do a rescheduling event, take a topic from the users list and out of a certain thread and reschedule it in the background.  

Reply only if you must, 'cause I'm still eagerly awaiting your forms processor. With it PmWiki will surely make a quantum leap in the scope of the applications feasible. Pmwiki.org will soon be like metadata

Again, here you see, two different sides exist. Why should one suffer the other by definition? Coding is one side, life itself is another. It is incompetence in my mind to not live and just code. I look forward to having people I know and value sometimes moderately private share some of their insight. And I hope free speech will live, with no need for moderation. We have a focus don't we?  

Think about this: we are a special community. We make a collaboritive authoring tool. It can be applied to ourselves and help reward and support contributors. No not just financially, but with support and by empowering. Pmwiki is to grow from a collborative writing tool to a community support tool. Syntax-wikis may well be near the end of their life-cycle anyway. For Pm it is just a smart move. 



Maybe the caveman is really Pm ;)

Peace be with you, sincerely.  

This maybe me leaving the list. 

/jm




_________________________________________________________________
Discover the new Windows Vista
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=windows+vista&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE


More information about the pmwiki-users mailing list