Another terse mail (moreso than the last). Standard "meant in kindness and productivity" disclaimer applies.
I like the observation that we should find broken things and suggest ways to fix them. This seems exactly what Chris Saad and Paul Jones had in mind with the service discovery stack we discussed last f2f. I don't think we're terribly far off from this now; that is, with some minor reframing and redirection, I think the efforts currently going on in the Tech group can deliver this. I particularly like the idea of presenting anti-patterns and their solutions.
I think we're too fragmented as a group. I'd suggest that we condense down to Steering and Tech; this aligns well with the desire to make specs and advocate them. We should then be very reticent to create any new subgroups.
I think we should either stop or slow way down the PR. Perhaps publishing a "This Week In DP" on a weekly basis to highlight the work of others, then aiming to have accomplished enough in the DP project to get the lead in that posting very often.
I (of course) like the idea that we frame an entry-point which matrixes the level of info a person is seeking, their job function, the amount of time they have, and what they're looking to do (understand, implement, contribute). Provide focus for those (like me) who want to use a limited amount of time to good effect. If no one has done this by first week of June, I'll step in; I'd do it sooner, but there are two conference presentations and a week of vacation for me between here and there.
As to the various versions of "do we close the doors or continue," I don't think it's a right choice to close up shop at this point. I'm just hoping that we'll spend more energy on doing and less on saying for a while.
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Jim Meyer <jme...@linkedin.com> wrote:
> Another terse mail (moreso than the last). Standard "meant in kindness and > productivity" disclaimer applies.
> I like the observation that we should find broken things and suggest ways > to > fix them. This seems exactly what Chris Saad and Paul Jones had in mind > with > the service discovery stack we discussed last f2f. I don't think we're > terribly far off from this now; that is, with some minor reframing and > redirection, I think the efforts currently going on in the Tech group can > deliver this. I particularly like the idea of presenting anti-patterns and > their solutions.
Agreed - we've already found the pain points and are clearing them up in the tech group. Would love to have your input there about how to re-frame them and move them forward.
> I think we're too fragmented as a group. I'd suggest that we condense down > to Steering and Tech; this aligns well with the desire to make specs and > advocate them. We should then be very reticent to create any new subgroups.
In addition we have Evangelism and Policy groups running - I don't think they should distract from the technical work though.
Evangelism is responsible for cleaning up our wiki and running the blog and responding to external blog posts etc.
Policy are discussing the T&C and EULA problem.
I don't think there is any reason to shut those down - they should not distract the Technical group and the engineers who stick to that conversation.
> I think we should either stop or slow way down the PR. Perhaps publishing a > "This Week In DP" on a weekly basis to highlight the work of others, then > aiming to have accomplished enough in the DP project to get the lead in > that > posting very often.
We actually have a monthly report that serves the purpose. We are not doing any other active PR. All the recent announcements and interviews have been externally requested. All answers have been 'We are working on the Technical Documents'.
> I (of course) like the idea that we frame an entry-point which matrixes the > level of info a person is seeking, their job function, the amount of time > they have, and what they're looking to do (understand, implement, > contribute). Provide focus for those (like me) who want to use a limited > amount of time to good effect. If no one has done this by first week of > June, I'll step in; I'd do it sooner, but there are two conference > presentations and a week of vacation for me between here and there.
Jim this is the job of the Evangelism group and specifically a 'Communications' taskforce lead by Mary that has just started up with this goal in mind. I would love your feedback on the Information Architecture to clear this up.
Right now we have the home page that is broken down into job functions, then each home page is geared towards that particular job function. We also have big 'get involved' buttons which detail how to get involved at various levels of commitment.
> As to the various versions of "do we close the doors or continue," I don't > think it's a right choice to close up shop at this point. I'm just hoping > that we'll spend more energy on doing and less on saying for a while.
Agreed Jim - I know the guys who are working day-to-day in the tech and steering groups are not talking - they are trying very hard to do. We really need to encourage others to do the same (or go off to focus on their own projects)
> --j
-- Chris Saad
FaradayMedia - For Audiences of One Particls - Are You Paying Attention? Engagd - The Open Attention Platform Media 2.0 Workgroup - Social, Democratic, Distributed APML - Your Attention Profile DataPortability - Connect, Control, Share, Remix
Dear Jim, regarding the doing, I like the idea of fewer groups.
Regarding the saying, not sure what you mean by "PR." If you're
addressing process, communications must be streamlined as well as
invisible -- so that the emphasis goes to describing the work being
done on best practices in data portability. If you're addressing the
question of the project's visibility in general, the work needs to be
presented to all stakeholders, including the public. If the
technologists focus on content, the message will take care of itself.
Regarding the matrix, fabu.
A little less conversation, a little more action DONE AND DAYLIGHTED.
Yours in DP, Mary
To chime in on the tail end of things here... I am one of the 'guys' Chris is referring to in the Steering Group. We are working our buns off everyday. There is an incredible amount of momentum behind DP, and an equal amount of energy being put into it by many, many individuals.
I appreciate that this conversation is taking place, and I appreciate that you all care enough about data portability to engage in this discussion. For my part, however, I would prefer to spend my spare cycles making progress and, as Jim said, 'doing.'
The more people 'doing', the more will get done. Each and every one of us have an opportunity to shape this organization, its message, and its role in the community. So, if there is something you don't like, come and change it from the inside out. Trust me, your expertise (whatever it is) is absolutely needed.
> Dear Jim, regarding the doing, I like the idea of fewer groups.
> Regarding the saying, not sure what you mean by "PR." If you're > addressing process, communications must be streamlined as well as > invisible -- so that the emphasis goes to describing the work being > done on best practices in data portability. If you're addressing the > question of the project's visibility in general, the work needs to be > presented to all stakeholders, including the public. If the > technologists focus on content, the message will take care of itself.
> Regarding the matrix, fabu.
> A little less conversation, a little more action DONE AND DAYLIGHTED. > Yours in DP, Mary
I have to say, my personal frustration with my involvement with the
Project is the admin side which has prevented me from working on the
areas I am genuinely passionate about - explaining the business
potential and policy areas over data rights. I don't think I can
handle any more admin. Something like the monthly report takes quite a
bit of labour, so I can't imagine how a weekly report would turn out,
I would like to clearly consider this.
One thing I have been thinking about, as part of the governance
taskforce work, is we re-examine the need of the action groups. We
need one central place where we can coordinate - I suppose steering -
where all authority is derived. But we also need to not do any work in
that central place, but instead break them off into their own groups.
Narrow and specific deliverables - like how our taskforces as working
now. Decicions made in steering; action done in taskforces.
Having said that though, Evangelism, technical, policy and steering
have very different functions. Our localisation group shoud be part of
Evangelism; and our implementation group should be part of technical
(for the sake of practicality - implementation may grow out again when
we hit that stage). Maybe if we stick with action groups, we simply
focus our efforts on clearly articulating what the function of that
group is? A list of things to do, categorised by action group.
Finding broken down things and fix them - yes, always been the case. I
like the idea DataPortability is an independent body that as Julian
says is the "clearning house". In some of my research and looking into
the history of things, I have found a lot of standards groups have
agendas and leading players of quite a few groups have conflicts of
interest. Clearly articulating how they all fit together, where we
lack something in the ecosystem, and providing an objective voice on
what our thoughts are of them would be is a valuable thing indeed.
>> As to the various versions of "do we close the doors or continue," I don't >> think it's a right choice to close up shop at this point. I'm just hoping >> that we'll spend more energy on doing and less on saying for a while. > Agreed Jim - I know the guys who are working day-to-day in the tech and steering groups are not talking - they are trying very hard to do. We really need to encourage others to do the same (or go off to focus on their own projects) >(or go off to focus on their own projects)
Chris, I find this *repeated* point offensive, just so you know.
And, when there's need to be doing, we do, and when there's need to be talking, we talk. Nothing wrong with that. This is what we're here for. I think most (actually, all) people on the DP groups have been pretty reasonable and constrained, until perhaps a day ago, for good reasons, to speak up.
If we're working with a benevolent dictator, despite this wikiocracy bs, we have to at least feel comfortable that the dictator is benevolent (and less self-serving).
Some do not agree with our goals of documenting best practices and feel that writing code or working on more specific standards are where their energies are best spent. I fully encourage those people to do this very important work in groups that support that type of approach.
We have a specific agenda with a specific approach - it was decided by the founders and re-confirmed by early participants.
I'm not sure what you mean about dictatorship, wikiocracy bs or any of your self-serving swipe.
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Aaron Cheung <a...@ydrive.com> wrote: > >> As to the various versions of "do we close the doors or continue," I > don't > >> think it's a right choice to close up shop at this point. I'm just > hoping > >> that we'll spend more energy on doing and less on saying for a while.
> > Agreed Jim - I know the guys who are working day-to-day in the tech and > steering groups are not talking - they are trying very hard to do. We really > need to encourage others to do the same (or go off to focus on their own > projects)
> *>(or go off to focus on their own projects)*
> Chris, I find this *repeated* point offensive, just so you know.
> And, when there's need to be doing, we do, and when there's need to be > talking, we talk. Nothing wrong with that. This is what we're here for. > I think most (actually, all) people on the DP groups have been pretty > reasonable and constrained, until perhaps a day ago, for good reasons, to > speak up.
> If we're working with a benevolent dictator, despite this wikiocracy bs, we > have to at least feel comfortable that the dictator is benevolent (and less > self-serving).
> Regards, > Aaron.
-- Chris Saad
FaradayMedia - For Audiences of One Particls - Are You Paying Attention? Engagd - The Open Attention Platform Media 2.0 Workgroup - Social, Democratic, Distributed APML - Your Attention Profile DataPortability - Connect, Control, Share, Remix
> Aaron, there is nothing offensive about my point.
That's what I found, trusting that you didn't find the same.
> Some do not agree with our goals of documenting best practices and feel that writing code or working on more specific standards are where their energies are best spent. I fully encourage those people to do this very important work in groups that support that type of approach.
Disagreement is commonplace. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama argue for good reasons within the DP, obviously not Data Portability, and that obviously doesn't translate to they don't spend their energies to do important work at the groups level. You don't need to tell people to just go to the groups, and after all, this is Steering Group, is this not a group, and what other works is more important, other than the words from the Steering Group Members?
> We have a specific agenda with a specific approach - it was decided by the founders and re-confirmed by early participants.
Who are the founders and early participants, could you wiki them out?
And if the agenda and opinions of the founders and early participants outweight those from the later participants, are you suggesting that DP is not an evolving organization -- obviously, organization in quotation marks.
And if early participants have bigger rights, recall that I seek to be one of your early participant, only that you didn't have the liking to respond, despite your open call to public participation.
Again, said before, nobody is required to take his or her company public. But if you want it to go public, please live by the rules and expectations of being public.
> I'm not sure what you mean about dictatorship, wikiocracy bs or any of your self-serving swipe.
