Hi Avi--

> > Having a short-term-gain mindset at all times will cause the total
> > effort to be much harder and take much longer. I'm sorry if this
> > sounds harsh (it sounds harsh to me, you don't need to convince me
> > of that :). Despite that, I think it's still best to speak plainly
> > here.
>
> I'll speak plainly back, then.

     Thank you!

> You asked in a recent message how to get someone else to use Spoon.
> The only true answer I can give is, offer them a short term gain. Yes,
> short term incremental improvement causes the total effort to be
> greater, but it also mitigates adoption risk: at each incremental
> stage you can assess whether or not people are actually going to use
> the work you're doing or not, and modify what you're doing
> accordingly.  It's great to go off on a long-term research project and
> come back with something beautiful, but there is a significant risk
> that it will turn out not to be what people actually want, and get no
> adoption.  Having an incremental process in the meantime is valuable,
> both as a backup in case the long-term project fails, but also to
> inform the long term project about what the community finds useful and
> what falls flat.

     There were two principles I was following. The first was that,
occasionally, a system requires important fundamental changes to remain
vital. I refer to previously-expressed concepts of "blue plane" or "burn
the disk packs" thinking. (I hesitate to use those particular phrases,
because I think much of their power in this community derives from
nostaliga. I do think, however, that they truly were valid ideas.) I
came to believe that the Squeak community was particularly receptive to
these ideas, not just the people espousing them or the funding they
represented.

     The second principle was that discussion of a shared vision could
ameliorate the lack of a short-term gain, and even hasten the
implementation of the vision by attracting volunteers. There was a time
in the Squeak community, it seemed to me, when we could discuss the
merits of an idea before the implementation was finished. I found it
useful, and inspiring. This is why I have been writing progress reports
for Spoon and asking for feedback.

     I'm quite willing to grant that I've misunderstood these
principles, or that they don't hold anymore (whether or not they ever
actually did).

> In Vancouver, where I live, there is currently a massive multi-year
> project going on to extend a subway line from downtown out to the
> airport.  In 2010, when it's complete, it'll be great.  For now, it's
> a massive disruption.
>
> I can live with the disruption.  Here's what I wouldn't be able to
> live with: when I'm standing on the street corner hailing a cab to
> take me to the airport, one of the subway engineers comes over and
> tells me off.  "All you have to do is grab a shovel and help out and
> we'll get you to the airport in style - *so* much better than a taxi,
> and less total effort in the long run."  That's nice, buddy, but I've
> got a plane to catch.

     That's a straw man argument. In reality, there's usually a
discussion as to whether the design is worth funding (if there was a
vote, did you participate? What was your consideration process?). If
passed, the people building the system attempt to draw the labor from
people who at least are interested in participating, and who probably
also consider themselves qualified. (If you want to pursue this analogy
further, please use a new thread?)


     thanks again,

-C

-- 
Craig Latta
improvisational musical informaticist
www.netjam.org
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]