[humanmarkup-comment] Re: HumanMarkup: Paved With Good Intentions

["Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>]

Hi Rex,

> Neither you nor Sean nor anyone else who participated
> from the beginning (which I couldn't do because I didn't
> even become aware of this effort until March) can know
> about such behind-the-scenes efforts unless you continue
> to work behind-the-scenes.

Actually, I am aware that there is a lot of private discussion and so forth
that never makes it into the light of day. I guess that's required to some
extent, but I'm always generally opposed to such things. I like to work in
the open, and it baffles me when others don't. So the private stuff is
private; I can only comment on the public work that I find has been
conducted by the HumanMarkup participants. I can't acknowledge private hard
work if it is private!

> Also, I think that insisting on just one approach as the
> only way things can work doesn't usually accomplish
> much either, besides alienating those who disagree.

Ah, but the first step is in having an approach at all (and I'm assuming
that you mean technical approach)! There are a diverse range of
participants in this group, characterized by Manos and his RDF-ish
leanings, and Len and his XSD-ish leanings. That's great, because (as Len
points out) this is a totally new application domain, and having this broab
base of experience really helps. However, it can also be
counter-constructive in that when you wadge 50 experts of different systems
into a room, they get incoherant very quickly indeed. That's what's
happened, AFAICT. This is why I so enjoyed the discussion we had about how
all of the technologies can fit togther w.r.t. HumanMarkup. More of that,
please!

> Also, the facts are that the work will only get done by those
> who are willing to do the work, even if it means some sacrifice
> of other pursuits in order to get that work done, so if it doesn't
> reflect what we want we only have ourselves to look to.

I acknowledge that I'm one of the main culprits there.

> Sean did, however, take the time to make some actual attacks
> and engage in derogation, which I simply don't understand.

Indeed you didn't. I did not seek to be personally derogatory, only
impersonally so. I hope that my initial response to these criticisms is
sufficient, but I shall underline it here: the people of HumanMarkup are
AFAICT nice, hard-working, devoted people. The ideals of HumanMarkup are
favourable, and something work working towards. The results so far of
HumanMarkup are pitiful when you take into consideration these factors, and
I blame the process behind it. I make no reservation in openly criticizing
the process, and I have been as blunt as I could possibly be. I have been
willfully ignored in the past, and if I hadn't, then I wouldn't have been
so harsh.

At least you're listening, now. Perhaps it still won't have any effect, but
I got the "uh". So the article was shocking; good. So the article got
misconstruced as being derogatory towards HumanMarkup members; I apologize,
admit that I could have phrased it better, and beg for forgiveness. I also
note that the former (desired effect) probably initiated the latter
(undesired effect), which is a bit of a bummer.

> Whenever I see that kind of behavior, the first thing I think
> is that the person doing it can't manage to see through to
> the issues and wants only to tear down not build, [...]

Of course I want to tear down!!! I want to tear down anything that I feel
is getting in the way of HumanMarkup. It depends upon the way one looks at
the situation as to whether or not one should build a cannon or shoot down
a wall; I will not engage in such speculation :-) Seriously though, I'm
sorry if that's the "vibe" you got from it. I wanted to identify what I
believe to be a serious flaw in the HumanMarkup project, and was frustrated
in that I have identified it many times before to no avail.

> because that is the actual effect of such behavior. It never
> achieves anything, but it does distract other people into
> emotional reactions that prevent work from getting done.

Since 80% of the feedback I've recieved so far has been pleasantly
constructive (or destructive, depending again upon the aspect), I'd say
that even the miscontrued behaviour could not have been all that harmful.
And since that was just an unintended and regrettable side-effect of a
charged article, I'd say that's pretty good going.

> Since you don't do that, I'm responding to your post as
> intelligently and as thoughtfully as I can. Hopefully you see
> the difference.

Of course. But would you have responded in such a manner if I had not been
so outspoken? I tend to believe that you would not have responded at all,
and the evidence I have for that is the lack of feedback from the many
occasions on which I have pointed out the HumanMarkup foibles.

> It would be very inappropriate if you, now the only qualified
> person to handle the important RDFS work, were to also
> abandon us, [...]

I can't remember Manos saying that he was going to leave? What's the
problem?

> One thing that you and Sean and not taking into account
> with your valid criticisms is that we are now having to redo
> a lot of work and engage in repeat discussions with qualified
> people who were not around the first time but who have
> something significant to contribute. Simply reading the digests
> is not sufficient to understand how we got to some of our
> conclusions.

Perhaps, then, those repeat discussions should haev been properly encoded
in a single corupus of work whilst they were being initiated? I know that
I'm right in levelling that criticism against Phase 0, but I know I'm also
to blame.

[...]
> > It strucks me to see how the list "ignores" Sean's resignation.
> > Sean has been by far the most advanced technical expert of
> > this group.
>
> I'm not going to engage in the same pointless expression of
> frustration, but whether from his expertise or personal
> idiosyncrasies some of Sean's posts were nearly indecipherable,

For "personal idiosyncrasies" read "crap writing style". Ah! It may have
been more humourous if I had used some of my own pernacious waffle as an
example of what's wrong with HumanMarkup... but would such a statement have
been as effective?

> but I usually attributed my own lack of understanding to my
> own limitations. However when we work in groups we have
> to make allowances for the abilities of our fellows.

Rather, you could have just told me to "put up, or shut up". The word
"allowances" is tinged with submissiveness is you comment, and yet I feel
that it is far more effective for groups to question one another than allow
for one another. Openness and honesty is a wonderful asset of any group
that possesses it! I sincerely hope that people can be honest with me, and
urge them to be as blunt as they want. I do not engage in pointless
sensibilities for sensibilities sake only: please, please, please people,
say what's on your minds.

Manos' (or whoever's - I'm having a hard time tracking tyhe subject of your
mail, Rex) "pointless expression of frustration" is only as pointless as
your calling it a pointless expression of frsutration. In other words, by
pointing it out as such, you are engaging in it yourself... and that's
good! But I rant...

> You counter this sort of thing by proposing your own more
> focused and technically advanced, and USEABLE work,
> rather than simply saying, "Oh this is hogwash!"

I think that there are some levels of absurdia that cannot be countered by
any form of technically advanced and focused work. Saying, "oh, this is
hogwash" is, IMO, sometimes the best way... at least it inspires
conversation.

[...]
> Actually comicML is something that exists and is quite
> useful. I refer you to our digests on the topic.

I suggest that Manos' "cartoonML" contained cynical overtones that you have
missed in your reply. Cartoon implies detachment from reality, from that
which is useful. Countering with a synonym for that markup language name
and saying, "hey, but this is useful!" is a valid thing to do, but does not
seem to me to address Manos' point.

[...]
> You are misguided when you attempt to "turn the group..." You
> can only add your own contribution.

I very much agree with you here, Rex.

Cheers,

--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .