Categories
Connecting

Good morning, Dave

I haven’t had much to say the last couple of days. When I read this I was concerned that anything I would say at this point would probably result in a visit from the Secret Service.

I did want to point out a couple of things. The first a letter containing questions and a request for a hearing penned by the Government Reform Minority Office. Add to this letter the new items we’re hearing, such as FEMA sending evacuees to the wrong state, and Brown induging in polite chit-chat when a catastrophe looms.

Norm Jenson has three good videos worth a first, second, and third look. The first is an interview with Jefferson Parish President Aaron Broussard. If you haven’t seen this yet, be prepared — it is not something that will leave you unmoved. You may want to watch it when you get home.

The second is an editorial by Keith Olbermann, and all I can say is that I am so glad there is someone like Olbermann who can do such a brilliant job of artculating our anger.

The third is of Jon Stewart. What Stewart provides is a way of laughing ourselves out of the immobility of the grief and the anger so that we can act. Right now, we’re acting in support of the victims of Katrina. Later, we’ll be acting against those who shirked their duty, completely gutted what was once the most efficient organization in the US government, and who dismissed an entire group of people just because the people are poor, and black, and southern.

Even now, Bush brings up WMD first, when he talks about making sure we’re prepared. WMD, then natural disasters. WMD first, because God causes natural disasters, so it’s up to God to repair the damages. Let the religious organizations deal with it. The religious organizations and the states and the counties and the cities. That way, the federal government can spend more money in Iraq.

Here’s a tidbit for you: the damage in New Orleans has cost thousands of lives, including several hundred waiting to be rescued from a ferry warehouse, and the 30 old people drowned when they were left unprotected in their beds. It will most likely cost 150billion dollars to fix, could result in devestating cultural and community shifts within one of our most important cultural and transportation cities, will pollute the surrounding area for years to come–and could have been prevented if 3 billion dollars had been set aside to fix the levees to withstand a category 5 hurricane.

Not only did we not spend this money, we removed all funding to provide any upkeep of the levee this last year — a year that scientists have said would be the worst hurricane season in history.

But more on that at a later time. Right now, I’m too unbalanced to be very articulate. Instead, I’ll point you to a writing by Dave Rogers called Change. It is by far the best work he has ever done, and one of the best writings I’ve read this year. I want to quote the whole, but will try to settle for a smaller piece:

There is something that keeps a group of people together that is more than just a paycheck. We “honor” individuals within our group as a way of renewing and strengthening that thing that keeps us together. It’s about faith, which is a word that is much abused of late. It’s about keeping faith with one another, and the really important things we believe, even if we don’t think about them much. To honor someone is to keep faith with them. Honor, the noun, is the quality of having kept faith with one’s fellows.

What happened in the failures of government in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina was not something intrinsic to the nature of bureaucracies or the public sector. What happened was a failure of leadership, a failure to renew and strengthen the shared faith that makes each of us a part of something larger, and hopefully, better than we are as individuals. What happened was a failure of leadership to keep faith with us.

That failure in leadership was not an accident. It was the result of too many years of too much neglect of the value of public service. For too many years, for too many people, public service has become just a means of advancing oneself in the private sector. People with something to gain, people with a profit motive, selfish, cynical people, have blurred the ideas of authority, responsibility, and accountability. All toward the end of abusing their authority to promote themselves while neglecting or ignoring their responsibilities, oblivious to the shared faith that has become the tattered and fraying social fabric that binds us together.

That failure in leadership was not an accident. It was the product of a political system that has embraced the ways and the methods of the marketplace to manipulate people, to command their attention or distract it. To craft clever, meaningless messages intended to obscure more than to illuminate. To appeal to fear rather than courage. To value appearance over substance. A marketplace in which honesty and integrity are often perceived as impediments to a healthy bottom line.

I’ve seen a lot of folks wondering what “we” can do to address this situation, and, predictably, people are focusing on technological solutions, when what we have is not a fundamentally technological problem. It’s something far less physical. It’s a crisis of faith, it’s a kind of identity crisis about who we are as a people and what we say we believe. Because there’s a disconnect, an enormous chasm, between what we say we believe and how we manifest that belief in the leadership we choose and the other choices we make. So if you want to try to begin to “solve” this problem, I’d say your time would be better spent there than in advocating a particular technology. I will note that many of those who do will be doing so while angling for some competitive advantage in the marketplace.

There is so much more — this excerpt doesn’t do the writing justice, so, please, read the whole essay.

About the issue of focusing on a technology solution to what ‘ails’ us. This was, in part, the inspiration for the post that I created, edited, added to, and eventually deleted–leaving only a cryptic ‘never. mind’. It was inspired in part by of discussions of meetings to organize ‘disaster 2.0′ — upon reading of which left me equally enraged and despondent. I am glad, now, that I pulled my writing because Dave says what I should have said.

We can’t afford to get caught up in the anger, sadness, and the despair; the amount of work and the utter indifference of the government. If we do, we’ll never change things, and we need to bring about change. It’s not a political party change because switching the Republicans out for Democrats won’t make a difference if the Democrats bring the same marketing mindset that Dave references. (Though I strongly believe the Republicans have had their chance these last few years, and have made a right mess of it. It’s now their turn to play minority, until such time as they remember who it is they’re supposed to serve.)

It’s a change within our hearts and heads. We have to, as Dave said, learn anew about how to keep faith with each other. Marketing is talking; keeping faith is listening.

Having said that, I also listened, with thanks and relief, to Dave’s post today about the feathered dinosaur. As to my opinion of the conclusions reached, Dave, all I have to say is this:

Scary, eh?

I also noticed that Tropical Storm Ophelia is blasting the area where you live, Dave, and may strengthen into a category 1 hurricane. Luckily, there’s help.

Now, that’s scary.

Stay dry and stay well, my friend. To all of you in harms way: stay dry, and stay well.

Categories
Connecting

Bubbles

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

This morning, I briefly turned my retro frames-based theme back on, long enough to take snapshots of the web sites of the various folk who left comments on the 1997 related posts. I’ve linked these at the bottom of this post. If you want to add your site to the gallery, or if I accidentally left yours off, leave a note.

The purpose of yesterday’s demonstration of Old is New Again was to have fun, but there was a point to it, too. This week we’re seeing a significant backlash against the hype of “Web 2.0″–not because we’re sneering at all the Beautiful People; but because we’ve been through this before, and we know what’s going to follow. Frankly, we’re a little peeved that people think we’re so daft as to forget what happened just a few short years ago.

Scott Rosenberg remembers, when he responded to Tim O’Reilly’s expressions of conference about a ‘hype cycle’:

I do not know what will come of this not-so-holy union, but from the feel of things at the Hotel Argent today, it seems likely that a certain number of people will get rich, a certain amount of money will be wasted, several important new companies and technologies will emerge and some indeterminate number of investors will be fleeced. So that means it’s probably too late, John and Tim — the hype-cycle wheel is already in spin, up, up, up.

For all that Web 2.0 is supposed to be about the tech, we’re seeing little new tech, and a whole lot of spin.

Returning a moment to my little frame-based web page: Frames are rarely used anymore, as web page purists having condemned them as Evil. I haven’t forgotten when they proliferated, and how they were (and still are) abused. A quick peek at about.com demonstrates how frames can, and are abused (frames, graphics, links, writers–you name it, and about.com will abuse it).

Yet for all of their abuse, they’re a nice little bit of technology. Comparing old and new, the whole concept of AJAX is so that people can make edits and refresh content ‘in place’–without having to re-load the entire web page. Frames also enabled continuity at a site, smoothing the flow of navigation. Where the two primarily differ in concept is that AJAX is restricted to accessing data local to the page of reference. Oh, and AJAX has a press agent.

To return to technology–because for all my tut tutting, I love to putter– here’s my first Ning application. I was rather amazed to see two responses already this morning. I guess I’ll have to clean it up since company is visiting.

Categories
Diversity RDF Technology

Women and Web 2.0

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

I have many things to do and it seems or feels little time to do them. This is compounded by some frustration in wanting to get a little of the Fall photography in while I have the opportunity, but this endless summer refuses to end.

The only tasks I have left now are writing and the preparation for the RDF tutorial at XML 2005, and they’re slow going. In addition to my commitments, I also want to get some writing here to the weblog before I take what could be a longish break. I want to finish my bottoms up RDF tutorial, and yes, finally, my part 2 and 3 of Parable of the Languages, and few other odds and ends that aren’t tech related.

I am also planning on writing a detailed response to Tim O’Reilly’s Web 2.0 writing, but was dismayed when I looked at the speaker list for the O’Reilly Web 2.0 Conference. For a topic as diverse as Web 2.0, what statement about this wonderous new world is being made when only 7 out of 106 speakers are women? Is there room for hope among the hype of Web 2.0?

We can only wish that during the parties and schmoozing, those attending will look through their glasses of bubbly and notice that something seems to be missing.

Categories
Diversity Technology

It starts with one

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

David Weinberger wrote about turning down attendance at an event because the guest list ended up being all men.

When I told the organizers why I wasn’t coming, they replied that they had invited three women who turned out to be unavailable. After our conversation they have invited some more women. But, only a few because, they told me, they’re trying to keep the total number of participants down so it will be more intimate – more better bonding! I told them they could use my spot to invite another woman. Have I mentioned that this is how the old boy network is formed?

Well done David. And yes, I think it is important that you discuss it online. It lets other folks know that there are consequences for not ‘trying hard enough’ to reach diversity.

Trying to diversify these gatherings doesn’t mean a lowering of quality. It means keeping your mind open as to what makes an interesting person; being aware that each of us contributes in our own unique, and possibly, different way. It also means questioning the assumptions, and if the answers aren’t good enough, making what could be some tough decisions.

So I’ll say again: well done, David.

Categories
Connecting RDF

Put up or shut up

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Recently, irritated by what seems to be an endless round of pushback against RDF, I made a put up or shut up statement in a post. Well, whether my irritation is justified or not, telling people that they have to put code down in order to have an opinion was not only wrong, it’s bad technology.

In these situations, a more appropriate response is to listen to the critics, find those areas of common concern among them and address these concerns. One way to do so is change the technology; another is to provide additional documentation and clarification of either the technology or the specifications on which the technology is based. At this point, some critics may still remain adverse to the technology and have legitimate reasons for being so. We can, then, either take on another round of fix and/or document; or we can decide that the effort to meet every concern is just not an effective use of our time. This is what makes good technology.

This week, James Robertson responded to a Robert Scoble ‘deal’, where the latter said he would switch weblogging tools if the tool provided a certain kind of support for OPML. Leaving aside whether Scoble will actually change tools based on this response, Robertson had some legitimate concerns about OPML and expressed them:

Ye gods, it’s time someone came out and said something. OPML is a really, really crappy format. Really crappy. I had massive headaches implementing OPML support for import/export in BottomFeeder. Why? Because there’s no real specification […] I had to add tons of hacks to the OPML support in order to support the export formats of various tools. The problem? Everyone implemented it a little differently, because the spec is incredibly unspecific – about just about everything.

I’ve looked at the OPML specification multiple times, and frankly, I’ve never had the least interest in trying to implement anything on it–not because I can’t, but because I see no purpose in it. The specification makes no sense; it reads like a mystery novel more than a technical document. Why would anyone possibly want to implement anything so vague? Coding just to code has never seemed useful to me; coding just because it would make Big Dog happy seems even less useful.

Regardless, OPML has its fans and more power to them. But when they start talking about implementation, others are going to bring up issues with OPML–if for no other reason than they’re like me, and think that there really is a true OPML specification somewhere, and we just haven’t been able to find it in Google yet.

Scoble’s response to Robertson was, frankly, asinine; especially for someone who purports to be writing a technical weblog, and prides himself on the ‘geek’ circles he inhabits.

James, here’s the deal. I really don’t care about specs. I’m a user here. When users say they want something the correct answer isn’t to call what they are asking for “crappy” but it is to either say “here’s what you’re asking for” or it’s to say “here’s what you’re asking for and I made it even better.” Or, I guess an OK response would be “I can’t do that, sorry.”

But if you say the format is crappy that makes me wonder if you have something better up your sleeve. So, I’m gonna call you on it. Do you?

This is classic put up or shut up. Robertson wasn’t telling Scoble what to do; he was using the post as an opportunity to make a statement of interest to him, about the underlying specification. If it had been played right, the OPML folks could have had some valuable insight into concerns about the specification, as well as perceived weaknesses. But no, it became something else–a satellite discussion that revolved around a few big dogs and aside from ensuring they have their weekly quota of links, hasn’t led to any positive advancement in technology.

Of course, I’m linking to the Big Dogs myself at this time, but it’s not because of OPML, as much as it is about “put up or shut up” as a way of shutting down discussions on technology. I did so with the one post I wrote and that was wrong on my part. Wrong, wrong, wrong. No matter how I package it up, I screwed the pooch with my response.

But to return to this whole OPML discussion, it seemed to me that what is happening is that Dave Winer really doesn’t want a clear specification. If he has one, he loses some leverage. Right now, to do anything with OPML you have to go through Winer. You can implement what you think is the spec, but there’s no guarantee that it will be ‘valid’ unless you get a Winer stamp of approval. And even then, there’s no guarantee that you won’t lose that stamp of approval six months to a year down the line.

Any technology that is dependent on a specific person is bad technology. This is true whether you’re looking to use the technology or implement it.

In the meantime, several people have written about the OPML specification and this ‘put up or shut up’ doorstop that make good reading:

Brainwagon:

The reason that developer’s just can’t get their OPML to work with Dave’s application is because the specification sucks. There is simply no way for anyone to tell if the OPML file generated by their application is really compliant with what Dave’s editor implements, or only just happens to never tickle a bug or an ambinguity which wasn’t specified.

Blogging Roller has an excellent take:

I think Scoble and Winer are right, it’s about the users. When you create a data format or netwok protocol specification, your users are the developers who have to implement the spec. In the case of blog tech specs, the users think the specs suck.

Roger Benningfield had two posts about the discussion: one on implementing OPML in JournURL and one responding to Dave Winer’s OPML guideline. Scoble, if you’re linking those who have met your demands, you need to link Roger’s post and weblogging tool, too.

Elliot Back takes a closer look at OPML from an XML implementation point of view.

In response to ‘put up or shut up’, James Kew wrote:

Like James, I’m not convinced that OPML is the magic bullet that Robert wants it to be. But I do firmly believe that shouting down critics with “do better or shut up!” is unhelpful, unproductive, and just plain rude: macho posturing at its worst.

Symphonius:

Speaking of which, why are people so insistent on having the attitude that you can’t criticize something unless you can do better? Knowing that something won’t work is more valuable than coming up with the idea that doesn’t work – they’ve already done more than the person that came up with the original idea just by showing why it won’t work. Besides which, there’s a different set of skills required to do something than there is to evaluate it. How many wine drinkers know how to make a better wine than the one their drinking? How many have actually done it? Would you suggest they just drink whatever wine is put in front of them because they can’t do better themselves?

A succinct Fanklinmint:

Scoble, that’s not very nice.

Rogers Cadenhead seems particular y put off by my and Jason Levine’s criticism in Scoble’s comments. (Levine not, I am assuming, being the same Jason who specifically told me to shut up in said comments.)

Let’s just accept as a given that you’re right (especially Shelley Powers and Jason Levine). OPML is utter crap. We could do so much better.

You could do so much better.

Create a better, better-specified format for the tasks supported by OPML. If the format’s as bad as you say, you shouldn’t have any trouble at all topping it.

But if you don’t have the time or the need to do that, then please have the decency to turn your critical gaze away from OPML. This format needs an RSS-style flamewar like the Gulf Coast needs tropical storms.

Jason responded with:

You should know better than to say something as meaningless as “if you can’t create something better, then don’t comment on the issue.” It’s a straw-man argument, created to be a distraction; of course reviewers don’t have to be implementors, they just have to know how to review — critically, with reason and logic, and with an understanding of the space in which their reviews exist. In this case, both Shelley and myself have been at this long enough to know how dangerous having crappy specs is — if any interest is generated in them, apps pop up that end up unable to generate compatible files, unable to interchange data, and leading to an enormous mess for the very users who helped popularize the features that the spec advertised. It’s no good for anyone at all. But the fact that I don’t have the time or energy to create a new spec is all you see, and the point you attack, leaving untouched the fact that OPML is still a terrible spec; if people want it to actually work, then what’s the harm in Dave (or anyone!) actually putting it together into a spec that’s usable by implementors?

I was going to respond in some depth until I read Jason’s comments; then I basically just wrote “ditto”.

(Speaking of RSS: I’ve played around with implementing applications that produce and consume RSS 2.0, RSS 1.0, and Atom. Of course, the RSS 1.0 is pretty easy for me as I have an API that can speak the model so I ‘cheat’ and use it rather than parse out the markup. But I found the Atom specification harder to implement out of the box than RSS 2.0. Why is that? Because the Atom specification is so precise that I can’t just slop anything in. RSS 2.0 is much easier to hack, but I’m left wondering how many tools support multiple enclosures and how many tools do not. I avoided the dilemma by going with RSS 1.1. )

I don’t want to channel Mark Pilgrim and spend a lot of my time pointing out the obvious–other than, if you haven’t been out to Mark Pilgrim’s site, Dive Into Mark, he’s got an interesting Red Cross donation page. He also has a t-shirt for sale I wouldn’t mind adding to my collection; to wear during those times when I waste my time commenting in Scoble’s ‘mudpit’.

(Mudpit. Now that’s a way to set the tone of discussions. Taking a page from Pilgrim’s biblical approach, you reap what you sow, Scoble. )

And since I have no interest in ‘putting up’ code for OPML (how many monkeys typing on a TiBook randomly can…), I guess I’ll have to shut up–Burningbird style.

picture showing kitten running in terror with words to the effect that God kills kittens when you use OPML