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

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

At 4:58 PM +0100 10/10/01, Sean B. Palmer wrote:
>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!

As a member of the TC you are or would be free to speak about work, 
the list is closed, but we don't have a policing policy or need for 
one that I know about. Also, the TC list produces a digest that is 
open to look at. The fact is, most of the discussions, in fact all 
that I am aware of, that are underway are being conducted here.

I've been on all sides of this situation and issue in various 
standards bodies, working and task groups, and this is the most open 
one I've ever seen. Unless you want to be in on the administrative 
details, which is what I was talking about in referring to 
behind-the-scenes efforts. There is a lot of private discussion that 
does go on, usually of no consequence, but all official work of the 
TC is done in the open. Making arrangements for teleconferences, 
keeping member lists and so forth is what I mean by administrative 
behind-the-scenes efforts.

>  > 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!

You're welcome to start any discussion you want to have. I enjoyed 
those too, but I'm awfully busy these days and getting busier all the 
time.

>  > 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.

You have explained this and I accept it. I have not to my knowledge 
willfully ignored you. I disagree that the results are totally 
pitiful. There is more than ample room for improvement and you can be 
assured we will at least do our best, regardless.

>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.

Perhaps your perception of "to no avail" is actually more accurately 
described as "to no apparent avail." Sometimes just because results 
are not immediate doesn't mean you have either been ignored, nor even 
had your views discounted. It may only be that no one is available to 
do the work you want done right now.

>  > 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.

I agree with that, though I would advise against making a habit of 
it, since it would then become less and less effective. A positive 
follow-through would be more helpful, or recruiting someone who has 
enough time to spare to work on the follow through.

>  > 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?

Have you never noticed that such actions as resigning can be 
contagious? Especially among those whose views are similar and who 
have been exhibiting the same apparent, if erroneously perceived, 
lack of effort or commitment?

>  > 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.

Sean, if you had my history of bluntness turning into crises, you 
would be careful, too. I could point you to examples, but I won't. I 
will, however take advantage of your honesty and tell you straight 
out when I can't understand something.

>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.

Okay, I hear and understand. I used to agree with this more, but I 
was smarter then. (But I was so much older, then, I'm younger than 
that now...one of my favorite Dylan ditties.)

>[...]
>>  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.

I didn't miss them.The comment was apparently meant to dismiss and 
belittle and I didn't want to draw attention to it, while at the same 
timeI wanted to discourage using the term "cartoon" in such a 
fashion, which effectively takes it out of the realm of being 
seriously considered


>[...]
>>  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.
>
Ciao,
Rex
-- 
Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com
Tel: 510-849-2309
Fax: By Request