eekim.com > EEK Speaks

Thu, Jun 29, 2006

BlogHer: Not Just a Conference    #

ElisaCamahort, LisaStone, and JoryDesJardins, the founders of BlogHer, spoke at last Monday's Collaboration SIG meeting, and they absolutely blew me away. I've got many great female colleagues, and I'd heard great things about BlogHer last year, so I figured it was a good thing. What I didn't know was how thoughtful these three women were about collaboration and how active a role BlogHer was playing in facilitating this network of women bloggers.    (KRT)

They won me over right from the start when I approached them about format, and they said they preferred to do it Donahue-style. I asked them whether they needed a moderator, and they said the three of them would just play off of each other and go from there. I asked what they thought about shifting the room into a circle, and they said they preferred it.    (KRU)

http://static.flickr.com/70/176131867_6e142892ca_m.jpg    (KS2)

The talk was entitled, "From Hierarchy to Community," and they spoke both about their relationship with the community-at-large (which they played a big role in bringing together) and with each other, as equal partners of an LLC. Much of what they said about collaboration resonated strongly with me, and I found myself nodding a lot. For example:    (KRV)

There are a lot of organizations right now who are trying to figure out how to facilitate networks sustainably. I think BlogHer is onto something good -- their values are on-target, and they've got three very smart and competent leaders -- although whether or not their model is sustainable is still an open question. I wouldn't bet against them, though. They're doing some interesting things with their advertising network, for example.    (KRZ)

There's also a lot they can learn about even more powerful models of collaboration and transparency. For example, I liked their approach to the BlogHer conference, but I couldn't help thinking about how they were going through the exact same process that HarrisonOwen went through 20 years ago before he invented OpenSpace. It's not an indictment of them, but a constant reminder that those of us who are passionate about collaboration are still not close to knowing what everyone else knows, and it's further reinforcement that BlueOxenAssociates' mission is an important one.    (KS0)

In any case, I'm looking forward to following BlogHer's progress. Check out the podcast from the meeting, and also Elisa's comments afterwards. The next conference is July 28-29 at the Hyatt San Jose in SanJose, California, and there are still spots open for the second day, so check it out.    (KS1)

/talks | Posted at 4:14pm

Wed, Jun 28, 2006

Technical Debt    #

DavidAlban posted a link to AndyLester's slides, "Get out of technical debt now!" to the SanFrancisco Perl Mongers' mailing list. Andy gave the talk at a recent London Perl Mongers meeting.    (KRO)

It's a very clever framing of a common problem. My favorite line:    (KRP)

When you can't do the projects you must do, you are bankrupt.    (KRQ)

Update (June 29, 2006): According to Andy, he actually gave those slides at YAPC::NA 2006. Someone from london.pm happened to see his talk and posted his slides to their list.    (KS3)

/tech | Posted at 2:49pm

Buddhist Ox    #

The name, "BlueOxenAssociates," is a reference to Babe the Blue Ox of the PaulBunyan legend, which in turn is a subtle homage to DougEngelbart. Most Americans know the story, although I find myself having to explain it to folks from other countries. On occasion, some folks have told me that blue oxen have some significance in Buddhism, although I have never bothered to look this up.    (KRI)

I told this story to ShavaNerad, whom I met last week at the Identity Mashup, and she looked up the story for me! She pointed me to a story about Great Joy, the Ox, and she also explained, "The color blue is used in hindu/buddhist iconography to indicate as association with the celestial."    (KRJ)

Thanks, Shava! If others know of other blue oxen stories, please let me know.    (KRK)

/blueoxen | Posted at 11:13am

Tue, Jun 27, 2006

Identity Commons Sessions Summary (June 21, 2006)    #

There were two sessions on IdentityCommons on the OpenSpace day (June 21, 2006) at the Identity Mashup at the MIT Media Lab last week. The first session was an open status meeting for the community at large. We described IdentityCommons's purpose, told the history of the organization, then explained how the organization could serve the community today and why the existing organizational structure wasn't adequate. We then announced that the current trustees had authorized a brand transfer, assuming that the new organization adopted purposes and principles consistent with the current purposes and principles.    (KQL)

Both sessions were well-attended, and there were a number of new faces. Interest in participation seemed strong.    (KQM)

In brief:    (KQN)

Current projects/interests (and stewards) include:    (KQR)

These projects could benefit from things like:    (KR1)

Eventually, what we're currently calling "Identity Commons 2.0" will need:    (KR6)

Our strategy for addressing these needs is to attack the low-hanging fruit first and to let the projects drive the priorities of the organization. We will start by forming an organizational working group consisting of the stewards of each of the working groups described above as well as anyone else from the community who wants to join. Its first meeting is a teleconference tentatively scheduled for next Thursday, July 6 at 9am PT, pending confirmation from the different stewards. (Details to be announced on the community mailing list.)    (KRA)

Organizational policy should be as lightweight as possible, giving each working group the option of customizing them to fit their needs.    (KRB)

We will use the community mailing list for discussion. We will also setup a Wiki, leveraging the work JonRamer did for Identity Mashup. We will look into merging some of the other Wikis, such as IdentityGang, into this new Wiki.    (KRC)

Who will decide what working groups form or what collaborative tools we'll use? In general, if someone wants to propose something that's consistent with the purposes and principles, the answer is "yes" -- provided someone is going to steward the proposal.    (KRD)

/collaboration/idcommons | Posted at 1:40pm

Tue, Jun 20, 2006

Kids Are Human Too!    #

Overheard in the halls of the Collaborative Technologies Conference just now:    (KQI)

"Mashups are great, but they would be even better if humans could put them together, just like kids do."    (KQJ)

Kids aren't human?    (KQK)

/collaboration | Posted at 7:24am

Sun, Jun 18, 2006

In Boston This Week    #

Tomorrow, I fly to Boston for the week for the Collaborative Technologies Conference 2006. Once again, I'm an advisor for this event. Should be a dandy.    (KQF)

If I get a chance, I'll also drop by Identity Mashup and the Boston 501 Tech Club meeting.    (KQG)

If you're in town and would like to meet up, drop me a line.    (KQH)

/events | Posted at 8:30pm

BlogHer Panel, June 26    #

We've got a great event scheduled for the June SDForum Collaboration SIG meeting: "BlogHer: From Hierarchy to Community." BlogHer founders ElisaCamahort, JoryDesJardins, and LisaStone will be sharing their experiences starting and facilitating the BlogHer community. It should be a great source of stories about collaboration and a great preview of the BlogHer conference next month. Hope to see you next Monday, June 26 at 6:30pm at Pillsbury Winthrop in PaloAlto.    (KQ5)

/events | Posted at 8:18pm

Personal Landmarks    #

Last Friday, en route to some pickup hoops in MountainView, my car hit the 200,000 mile mark.    (KQ0)

http://static.flickr.com/44/168702807_10115b6066_m.jpg    (KQ1)

I hit the mark around 7pm on a gorgeous, warm day while at the intersection of Alpine Road and Junipero Serra in PaloAlto. It was exactly eight days before the 10th anniversary of my car.    (KQ2)

Okay, I've already copped to driving too much. But I love that car, so allow me a brief moment of sentimentality. In celebration of this moment, I promise not to drive as much in the years to come. I'm still pondering what my mileage goals should be.    (KQ3)

Also, this is my 300th blog post. This comes three weeks before the third anniversary of this blog. The power of threes!    (KQ4)

/personal | Posted at 11:59am

"An Inconvenient Truth" Followups    #

Lots of cool followups to report on the excellent global warming movie, An Inconvenient Truth.    (KPM)

First, EricPan wrote the other day about his web site, Share The Truth, a marketplace for giving away free tickets to see the movie. I love Eric's enthusiasm, and I love the fact that he did something about it, so I'm sponsoring three free tickets with the following caveats:    (KPN)

If you want to take me up on the offer, respond directly on the forum.    (KPR)

In a similar vein, I dragged the HyperScope project team along with other folks in our extended community to see the movie. We had (and continue to have) lots of great discussion afterwards. I encourage all of you to take similar field trips.    (KPS)

Finally, in my review, I wrote:    (KPT)

We need more transparency in society, and we need tools that give us that transparency. For example, when I purchase food from the supermarket, I'd like to know the comparative "carbon costs" of those different items. As my friend StephanieSchaaf has often pointed out, when you buy locally grown produce, even if it's nonorganic, you're helping the environment, because less energy is consumed in transporting the food. Everyone needs to know these things, and then they can decide for themselves whether or not to do anything about it.  T    (KPU)

BorisMann (via KellanElliottMcCrea) reports that there's a grocery delivery service in Vancouver that includes distance travelled on its bill. It's called Small Potatoes Urban Delivery. Cool stuff.    (KPV)

/movies | Posted at 11:39am

Mon, Jun 12, 2006

Beating the Dead Horse of Collaboration: Thinking Versus Doing    #

My post on the dangers of professionalizing collaboration spurred some good thoughts from ChrisDent, which resulted in some good discussion over IM. Chris wrote:    (KP6)

What one does when collaborating is always more important than collaboration itself.    (KP7)

In the ideal situation, collaboration disappears into the background. If you find yourself enmeshed in the details of how your group should interact, you've missed a step.    (KP8)

This is so true, it bears emphasizing. Think about dancing. What could be more collaborative? If you're thinking about your footwork or your next move as you dance, you are almost certainly not dancing well. On the other hand, how do you become a good dancer without thinking about footwork? More importantly, how do you improve if you're not self-reflective? Obviously, actually doing it is crucial -- and in the end, it's the most important thing -- but there's still room for self-reflection and discussion. What's the right balance?    (KP9)

The key is a cycle of reflection and action. You think and you talk, but when it comes to action, you forget all of that, and you simply do. All of that thinking, regardless of how good or how deep it is, is useless if it hasn't been internalized, if it's not actionable. If it has been internalized, then thinking or talking about it is not only unnecessary, it just gets in the way.    (KPA)

Chris's point reminded me of something: People's best experiences with collaboration often occurs when there's a sense of urgency. Collaboration following disasters is a great example of this. A big reason for this is that people don't have the luxury of overthinking a problem, and so if collaboration is good, nothing artificial gets in the way.    (KPB)

In my essay, "Everything Is Known: Discovering Patterns of Emergent Collaboration," I talk a lot about WilliamLangewiesche's book, American Ground and the emergent collaboration that occurred after 9/11. I didn't get to talk in detail about what happened after the bulk of the recovery effort was complete, although I alluded to it in a previous blog entry. Langewiesche writes:    (KPC)

Safety restrictions were increasing by the day. Ken Holden was philosophical about it, and, as his father might have years before, he played a little word game -- something like metaphor-cramming. He said, "When the smoke clears, the nitpickers come out of the closet." And it was true: the regulators and auditors had arrived in force. Those from the federal safety agency called OSHA were most in evidence; they had been present from the start, and had been largely ignored, but were suddenly multiplying now and gaining the upper hand. They wore bright safety vests and had helmets equipped with red flashing lights. One afternoon, with about a dozen of them in sight, their lights blinking in the hole, Pablo Lopez said to me, "Look! The Martians have landed and they're communicating!" A few days later one of them asked me to don safety glasses or leave the excavation site, and I remember my surprise when I realized that he was serious. It felt sort of silly, like being required to wear sunblock in a combat zone, but the truth was that the battle was over, and the hole had become a tame place. Lopez's partner Andrew Pontecorvo explained it to me as a fact of life that he had observed before. He said, "The safer things get, the greater the restrictions." He was a realist. He shrugged. (198-199)    (KPD)

How do we avoid this trap? One key is to build a frequent, regular cycle of intense collaboration followed by reflection into your design. You can't do both at the same time, but you don't want to do one without the other for too long. Deadlines are a pattern that facilitates this behavior.    (KPE)

If your team or community is aware of this cycle, then if someone's self-reflection is preventing work from happening, you can call him or her on it. Chris suggested having a HorseIsDead? stick, similar in concept to a talking stick. I'm not sure exactly what you would do with the stick yet -- beating the person over the head with it sounds right, but this may not go over well with management -- but I think he's on the right track.    (KPF)

If the reason for collaborating is more important than the collaboration itself, then what are the implications for metrics? Do you measure collaboration at all, or do you measure whether or not you're achieving your mission? The example I often use for this are the 2000-2003 KobeBryant and ShaquilleONeal Lakers. No one would point to those teams as models of effective collaboration, but who cares? They won three consecutive championships. Which metric is more important? Well, they may have won three, but they should have won four, and they had to break up the team because they couldn't get along. The point is that you can't measure one in isolation from another. You need to measure both, and consider one in the context of the other.    (KPG)

/collaboration | Posted at 12:25am

Sun, Jun 11, 2006

Wright on Professions    #

I often talk about the craft of collaboration, and how we need to treat collaboration as a discipline. There needs to be enough cognitive structure there so that we can get better at collaborating on collaboration. You have to be careful, though, because over-formalization creates its own set of problems, and the line between that and just-enough structure is a thin one.    (KOO)

After JeffShults and I wrapped our April Tools for Catalyzing Collaboration workshop, MattTaylor approached me and showed me a letter FrankLloydWright had written to TalmadgeHughes, the head of the AmericanInstituteOfArchitects on January 22, 1945:    (KOP)

My dear man:    (KOQ)

You put me up against the same old hard-spot! Forty years past I've had to seem uncooperative and ungracious by refusing to join the Institute. Perhaps I can make clear to you why I refuse again.    (KOR)

I do not join the A.I.A. because I am more interested in Architecture than in the Profession and I felt, as I still feel, able to serve not only Architecture but the Profession better outside the Institute than in it.    (KOS)

I crave good-will and the comradeship of my kind -- every man does. But I've felt that I couldn't do the work I wanted to do inside any "Profession." I've had to be a free-lancer and become anathema to the good old guard: the A.I.A. As I then felt, I still believe that Architecture (my real objective) is more than ever Discipline in deciding this matter.    (KOT)

I believe no man can really cooperate except as he maintains the independence of his Spirit. If he becomes interdependent, he is gone, in the same way that (so it seems to me) our National Democracy is gone. But I have never refused anything the boys ever asked me when I could render it on decent terms.    (KOU)

The Profession is in reality more Personal than Principle. Besides this, I know my own limitations in the personal way. Principle makes bad fellows of us all when we come against the hard choice between good-fellowship and the interior discipline of Principle.    (KOV)

There is enough to struggle with when all is fine. Imagine then how much the strain is multiplied by intimate association with congenital opposition or inordinate comradeship.    (KOW)

Does this seem to you as though I consider myself superior to my fellows in the Profession? If so, you are wrong. I frequently envy some of them and wish it all were for me as it seems to be for them. Not that I would trade places -- or, even now, regret the isolation that seems to have chosen me.    (KOX)

What I have, what I have done and what I am belongs to my fellows whether either I or they like it or not. But, my dear Talmadge, I want what I have given and what I still have to give to be unhampered by personal or professional considerations.    (KOY)

I hope you won't misunderstand and resent.    (KOZ)

Faithfully yours,    (KP0)

"We have to be careful," said Matt. "We may be reaching a similar point with Collaboration."    (KP1)

By "we," Matt was talking about those of us who self-identify as folks in the field of collaboration, whatever the heck that is. And that was part of Matt's point. We have to start talking more seriously about what it is, but at the same time, we can't get so caught up with it that we become a Profession (in the worst way) and lose the essence of what we're supposed to be about.    (KP2)

/collaboration | Posted at 9:13pm

Why Nonprofits (and Foundations) Should Care About Open Source    #

Why should nonprofit organizations care about OpenSource? I've had an ongoing conversation about this with KatrinVerclas for a while now, and I thought it would be worth outlining the arguments here. I actually think philanthropic organizations should care a lot more about OpenSource than nonprofits, and I'll explain why below.    (KOD)

Forget, for a moment, the question of whether nonprofits should be investing in technology or what the long-term return on investment might be. That question is a bit of a red herring, because a lot of nonprofits have fundamental problems (poor management, under-resourced, etc.) that can't be resolved with technology.    (KOE)

Instead, assume that there are specific needs that can be addressed by technology. The question is, what do nonprofit organizations need to leverage that technology? They need two things:    (KOF)

If there's an affordable tool that meets your needs, and if you have the capacity to install, maintain, and use it, then it doesn't matter whether the tool is proprietary or OpenSource. Use it.    (KOI)

If there's no tool that meets your exact needs, then that tool becomes a candidate for fundraising, and the conversation likely shifts from the nonprofit itself to foundations. If you're a foundation and if you're going to invest in the creation of a tool, there are all the reasons in the world to invest in OpenSource.    (KOJ)

Most importantly, as a foundation (or nonprofit), you're more likely to be skilled at connecting people than you are at developing software. And this is exactly what developers need to build better tools -- a greater understanding of their users. Commercial companies aren't likely to care about a market unless it is mature, and the needs of most nonprofits don't fall into that category. But OpenSource developers will care. Many OpenSource developers share the same underlying "do good" attitude that folks in the nonprofit world have, and they're more than happy to improve their tools for the nonprofit community. By focusing on connecting with a pre-existing software development community that is already predisposed to work for the social good, you are likely to get better tools sooner than you might from proprietary software companies.    (KOM)

More importantly, the process of connecting has a powerful side-effect: It helps build organizational capacity. When you connect your community to developers, you're also connecting your community to each other. There will be some who will feed off the knowledge of developers, and that's critical. Even more critical is what your community will absorb from each other. People are far more likely to learn from their peers -- those they perceive are as lost as they are -- then they are from authority figures.    (KON)

/forbenefit | Posted at 8:57pm

Fri, Jun 09, 2006

Drink Wine, Support the Taproot Foundation    #

JoshRai recently informed me that the TaprootFoundation is having a wine-tasting fundraiser at the SanFranciscoMuseumOfModernArt next Wednesday, June 14, 6:30-8:30pm. Tickets are $50 and include music, hors d'oeuvres, and samplings of over 150 wines from 50 NewZealand wine growers. TaprootFoundation does great work, and you can't go wrong with wine at MOMA, so buy your tickets today!    (KO9)

/events | Posted at 1:27am

Stars Aligning, Ice Breaking    #

JonRamer had a great line this morning that really struck a chord. He said he felt like the stars were aligning and the ice was breaking. It's a beautiful metaphor, because it describes in a nutshell what needs to happen in order for a self-organizing system to be successful. Catalyzing collaboration in a community consists of removing obstacles and prodding the system. In the end, however, your success still depends on whether or not the stars are aligned.    (KO4)

A lot of politicians saw HowardDean's successful use of the Internet in 2004 and tried to replicate it with limited success. Similarly, a lot of organizations install Wikis thinking they're going to have the next Wikipedia, or they OpenSource their software, thinking they're going to have the next Apache. It's okay to think big, but it's also important to recognize what you can and can't control.    (KO5)

You can't organize self-organization. Those who try are doomed to failure. Successfully catalyzing large-scale emergence requires understanding this fact and managing expectations accordingly.    (KO6)

/collaboration | Posted at 1:17am

Developing Shared Language    #

DrummondReed recently wrote about the IdentityRightsAgreements? session at last month's Internet Identity Workshop. While the outcome was fruitful, Drummond wrote, "The biggest frustration was that after an hour and fifteen minutes we were just really getting started - we needed a good half-day on the subject."    (KNJ)

JamieDinkelacker told me a similar story last year in describing a SOA gathering of gurus. The goal was to share knowledge and to advance the state of the art, but the participants spent most of their time arguing over the definition of "services."    (KNK)

The problem in the first case was with expectations. The participants should have expected some ramp-up time would be necessary to get started, because they needed to establish some SharedLanguage. The problem in the second case was with process. The participants did not have an effective strategy for developing SharedLanguage, and thus, the latter ended up monopolizing the whole workshop.    (KNL)

SharedLanguage is a prerequisite to collaboration. Without SharedLanguage, we can't collaborate. It's as simple as that. When a group tries to collaborate without having SharedLanguage, the group will try to create it, whether it's aware of it or not. This creation process is often frustrating and painful, and as a result, people sometimes try to skip this step or belittle the process. This is a problem. You can't skip this step.    (KNM)

When designing collaborative spaces -- both online and face-to-face -- you have to build in time and space for developing SharedLanguage.    (KNN)

If you examine every good collaborative, face-to-face process for large groups, you will find that all of them generally recommend a minimum of three days. I haven't found a rigorous explanation for why three days work so well, but the pattern is consistent, and we can certainly speculate. Much of it has to do with building in enough time to develop SharedLanguage. (MichaelHerman, OpenSpace facilitator extraordinaire, has suggested that it's less about the three days and more about the two nights -- having our minds go through two natural work-process-rest cycles. I think he's onto something.)    (KNO)

The first day is always about developing SharedLanguage. MGTaylor calls it the "Scan" day. PhilWindley calls it the "butt-sniffing" day. Regardless of what you call it, you need to design for it. It's going to happen whether you like it or not. The question is whether or not it will happen effectively while leaving time for action.    (KNP)

There are two myths regarding how you create SharedLanguage. The first is that "shared" is equivalent to "same." They're not. SharedLanguage means that you understand how others around you are using terminology. Some level of sameness is obviously useful, but when you're dealing with something relatively complex, sameness is both impossible and undesirable.    (KNQ)

I devised a metric several years ago called the SquirmTest that's similar in concept to Wikipedia's NeutralPointOfView?. The test is simple. Sit your team around the table. Have each person stand up and give a brief project description and status report. During the pitch, no one is allowed to talk, other than to ask clarifying questions. You have a perfect level of SharedUnderstanding and SharedLanguage if you make it around the room without anyone squirming.    (KNR)

The second myth is that creating SharedLanguage consists of creating a dictionary. That's certainly one way to approach it, but it's not the only way, and often times, it's not the best nor the fastest way.    (KNS)

There are three elements to creating SharedLanguage:    (KNT)

Sharing individual contexts is a fancy way of saying, "Know your audience." Or, more accurately, know who you're working with -- their world view, their values, etc. You don't have to use the same terminology the same way; you just have to understand what people mean and where they're coming from. For some techniques on how to do this, see Collab:KnowTheParticipants.    (KNX)

I've written many times about how Wikis and tagging encourage namespace clash, which in turn encourages SharedLanguage. From a facilitation standpoint (both face-to-face and online), if you pose questions that stretch the mind, you also draw out namespace clash. MGTaylor is especially good at doing this with its DesignShops?. AllenGunn uses a technique called a spectrogram where you stretch a piece of masking tape across the room, ask a controversial question, then tell people to go to the place on the tape that represents their position on the question. You then ask people along the spectrum why they're standing where they're standing, and you give people the chance to move around based on other people's answers. If you ask the right question, you'll not only quickly get a great sense of your audience, but you'll also draw out different interpretations of language.    (KNY)

Finally, simply scheduling time and space where SharedLanguage is the primary goal is useful. People are good at figuring out how to communicate with each other if you give them the space to do it. If you set unrealistic expectations on the first day of a three day event, then you just stress out your participants. If you spend the first day exploring broader questions, your participants may feel flustered or frustrated, but they will find that the work goes much more smoothly in the ensuing days.    (KNZ)

Developing SharedLanguage is an ongoing process. Doing actual work is one of the best ways to build shared context, which in turn builds SharedLanguage. The trick is to have stagger your work goals based on the SharedLanguage that already exists. The exercises you go through can become more and more focused over time, as the amount of SharedLanguage increases.    (KO0)

At the BlueOxenAssociates Tools for Catalyzing Collaboration workshops -- one-day workshops with about 25 participants -- we don't do participant introductions. We assign teams and have people go straight into their exercises. However, we pay careful attention to how we assign the initial teams, and we structure the exercises accordingly. For example, at our January workshop, we started by pairing people who either already knew each other or were in similar fields, and we had them start their exercises immediately. We then grouped pairs and had them present their work to each other. Finally, we had a plenary session where each group reported on their work, followed by a plenary discussion. Our participants were engaged right away, and the shared experiences acted as an icebreaker, which made it easier to meet new people and to talk in our designated networking times (e.g. lunch). We also had online profiles up on our Wiki, so that people could find out more about the other participants before, during, and after the workshop. Several people commented afterwards about the lack of group introductions. All of them liked it.    (KO1)

/collaboration | Posted at 1:06am

Tue, Jun 06, 2006

The Story of Glormf: Lessons on Language and Naming    #

JackPark recently asked about LinkAsYouThink on the BlueOxen CollaborationCollaboratory. I've written several blog posts on the matter, but there's not much else out there. This was a great excuse for me to tell a few vignettes about SharedLanguage and the importance of names.    (KMO)

Glormf    (KMP)

This is Glormf, courtesy of the uber-talented cartoonist, BrianNarelle.    (KMQ)

http://www.eekim.com/images/glormf.gif    (KMR)

FenLabalme coined the term (originally spelled "glormph") at an IdentityCommons retreat in July 2003. We were strategizing about next steps, and we found that we were all struggling to describe what it was that we were all working on. Although we all had different views of the proverbial elephant, we were also convinced that we were talking about the same thing. In an inspired moment of clarity, Fen exclaimed, "It's Glormf!" Much to our delight, Brian was listening to the conversation and drew Glormf for all of us to see.    (KMS)

Glormf's birth lifted a huge burden off our shoulders. Even though Glormf was mucky, it was also real. We knew this, because it had a name and even a picture, and we could point to it and talk about it with ease. The name itself had no biases towards any particular view, which enabled all of us to use it comfortably. Each of us still had a hard time describing exactly what Glormf was, but if anyone challenged Glormf's existence, any one of us could point to Glormf and say, "There it is."    (KMT)

We had created SharedLanguage, although we hadn't rigorously defined or agreed on what the term meant. And that was okay, because the mere existence of SharedLanguage allowed us to move the conversation forward.    (KMU)

Ingy's Rule and CommunityMarks    (KMV)

IngyDotNet's first rule of starting a successful OpenSource project is to come up with a cool name. I like to say that a startup isn't real until it has a T-shirt.    (KMW)

HeatherNewbold once told a wonderful story about how MattGonzalez?'s mayoral campaign buttons galvanized the progressive community in SanFrancisco and almost won him the election. As people started wearing the green campaign buttons, she described the startling revelation that progressives in SanFrancisco had: There are others out there like me. A lot of them. I was amazed to hear her speak of the impact of this recognition, coming from a city that has traditionally been a hotbed of activism.    (KMX)

There's a pattern in all of these rules and stories. I struggled to come up with a name for this pattern, and the best I could do for a long time was StoneSoup? (courtesy of the participants in my 2004 ChiliPLoP workshop). I loved the story associated with this name, the parable of how transformational self-awareness can be. But, it wasn't quite concrete enough for my taste.    (KMY)

I think ChrisMessina's term, "CommunityMark", is much better. Chris has actually fleshed out the legal implications of a CommunityMark, which I recommend that folks read. Whether or not you agree with him on the details, the essence of CommunityMarks is indisputable: Effective communities have CommunityMarks. CommunityMarks make communities real, just as the term "Glormf" made a concept real. That's the power of SharedLanguage.    (KMZ)

PatternLanguages and Wikis    (KN0)

PatternLanguages are all about SharedLanguage. Much of ChristopherAlexander's classic, The Timeless Way of Building, is about the importance of names. In his book, Alexander devotes an entire chapter to describing this objective quality that all great buildings have. As you can imagine, his description is not entirely concrete, but he does manage to give it a name: "QualityWithoutAName." Call it a copout if you'd like, but if you use the term (or its acronym, "QWAN") with anyone in the PatternLanguage community, they will know what you're talking about. SharedLanguage.    (KN1)

WardCunningham was one of the pioneers who brought Alexander's work to the software engineering community. He created Wikis as a way for people to author and share patterns. Not surprisingly, an important principle underlying Wikis is the importance of names. Regardless of what you think about WikiWords, they have important affordances in this regard. They encourage you to think of word pairs to describe things, which encourages more precise names. They discourage long phrases, which also encourages precision as well as memorability. The more memorable a term, the more likely people will use it.    (KN2)

Ward often tells a story in his Wiki talks about using ClassResponsibilityCollaborationCards to do software design. One of the things he noticed was that people would put blank cards somewhere on the table and talk about them as if there was something written there. The card and its placement made the concept real, and so the team could effectively discuss it, even though it didn't have a name or description. (Ward has since formalized leaving CRC cards blank as long as possible as a best practice.) This observation helped him recognize the need and importance of LinkAsYouThink, even if the concept (or Wiki page) did not already exist.    (KNG)

OpenSource: Propagating Names    (KN3)

One of BlueOxen's advisors, ChrisPeterson, coined the term, "OpenSource." In February 1998, after Netscape had announced its plans to open source its browser, a few folks -- Chris, EricRaymond, MichaelTiemann, KaPingYee, and others -- gathered at the ForesightInstitute to strategize. At the meeting, ToddAnderson? complained that the term, "FreeSoftware," was an impediment to wide-scale adoption. After the meeting, Christine called up Todd and suggested the term, "OpenSource." They both loved it. But, they didn't know how to sell it.    (KN4)

So, they didn't. At the followup meeting a few days later, Todd casually used the term without explanation. And others in the room naturally picked up on the term, to the point where they were all using it. At that point, they realized they had a good name, and they started evangelizing it to the rest of the community.    (KN5)

Names change the way we think about concepts, and so propagating names widely can shift the way people think about things. This is what happened with "OpenSource." This is what GeorgeLakoff writes about in Moral Politics.    (KN6)

The mark of a good name is that people naturally start using it. A name can come from the top down, but it can't generally be forced onto people.    (KN7)

/collaboration | Posted at 11:26am

Mon, Jun 05, 2006

Katrin Verclas: New N-TEN Director    #

Congratulations to KatrinVerclas, the new executive director of N-TEN! Those of you who follow my blog know what I think about Katrin: Quite simply, she's awesome.    (KM3)

Katrin is someone I've bonded with over the years, because she truly understands the importance of networks and how to catalyze them. More importantly, she's a doer. She's already planning a roadshow across the country this summer, so go say hello to her when she's in your area.    (KM4)

Katrin's got what it takes to catalyze N-TEN's latent potential, and I'm looking forward to seeing her jolt it to bigger and better things.    (KM5)

/forbenefit | Posted at 11:19am

An Inconvenient Truth    #

I saw "An Inconvenient Truth" last night. Go see it. It's well done, and it's not entirely upsetting. More importantly, bring someone who wasn't already planning on seeing it.    (KL2)

My biggest takeaway from the movie: I had previously thought that there was scientific disagreement over whether or not global warming was real. AlGore shows that this is not the case. They took a 10 percent sample of articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals (almost 1,000 articles), and every single one of them acknowledged global warming as real phenomenon. They then took a similar sampling of articles in the popular media, and over 50 percent of them suggested that there were some scientific detractors. Propaganda stinks, but it sure is effective. (For more on this, check out MichaelShermer's Skeptic column in the June 2006 issue of ScientificAmerican, spotted by the movie's blog.)    (KL3)

This further reinforces my view on the most important challenges we need to address en route to solving the world's biggest problems: transparency and dialog.    (KL4)

I'm a big believer in markets, but markets rely on "perfect information" to work correctly. When we live in a world that is so easily swayed by propaganda that the popular press reports that global warming is scientifically controversial and the majority of Americans believed that SaddamHussein was behind 9/11, then we don't have perfect information. I have no gripe with people whose beliefs are different from mine. I have a problem who base their opinions on misinformation.    (KL5)

We need more transparency in society, and we need tools that give us that transparency. For example, when I purchase food from the supermarket, I'd like to know the comparative "carbon costs" of those different items. As my friend StephanieSchaaf has often pointed out, when you buy locally grown produce, even if it's nonorganic, you're helping the environment, because less energy is consumed in transporting the food. Everyone needs to know these things, and then they can decide for themselves whether or not to do anything about it.    (KL6)

One of the ways to create a marketplace of better information is by increasing and diversifying dialog. Talk is not cheap. We need more conversations with the people who already surround us, and we need more conversations with those who are different from us.    (KL7)

Several of the friends I was with bemoaned the fact that those of us watching the movie were the wrong target audience. I disagree. I don't think the environmental community has maximized its group potential, and movies like this can help catalyze further progress.    (KL8)

JoelMakower at WorldChanging recently wrote about how Houston ranked last in last year's SustainLane rankings for sustainable cities. The problem? Makower writes:    (KL9)

Houston's problem, it seems, had as much to do with its lack of self-knowledge and coordination of efforts as with its actual performance. And that put it in good company -- not just with other cities, but with thousands of companies that have good, green stories to tell, if only they knew about them. Sometimes, it's the simple matter of finding the stories -- along with good storytellers -- that can begin a positive spiral of inspiration and innovation -- leading, of course, to even more good stories.    (KLA)

Put another way: If only Houston knew what Houston knew. Now, increasingly, it does.    (KLB)

More thoughts:    (KLC)

/movies | Posted at 10:53am

Thu, Jun 01, 2006

Distributed Flickr    #

I recently upgraded my Flickr account to Pro and started using it wholeheartedly. I've even invited a few folks to join, which is something I've never done with any of the SocialNetworking? sites I'm on. Okay, so the digerati who follow this blog are probably yawning right now. (If this includes you, then be patient. I guarantee you'll find the latter part of this post interesting.) Obviously, Flickr's been a phenomenon for a long time. But my reasons for jumping on the Flickr bandwagon may interest some, and if not, my thoughts on distributed photo sharing hopefully will interest the rest of you.    (KKP)

Why did it take so long for me to embrace Flickr? Mainly because I've got a hacker mentality. I'm also not crazy about my personal data being stored on someone else's machine. I'd rather hack and host myself if I can help it.    (KKQ)

This mentality has changed over the years, largely due to lack of time and shifting priorities and philosophy. But what really sold me was:    (KKR)

We're still using Gallery at BlueOxenAssociates, largely due to some special needs. Which leads me to my big gripe about Flickr. Why can't I use Flickr to share pictures hosted elsewhere? In other words, if I have an image somewhere on the web I want to share, why can't I "bookmark" it on Flickr a la del.icio.us?    (KKW)

This idea emerged from GregElin's participation at the first FLOSS Usability Sprint. Greg's team, which included MaryHodder and MattMullenweg, was discussing FotoNotes's needs. At some point, Matt brought up the idea of a bookmarking service for photos, and the team started running with it. These discussions helped inspire and influence Mary's startup, Dabble, which allows you to bookmark video hosted elsewhere.    (KKX)

I'm totally psyched to see Mary take this idea to fruition, but I'd still like to see something similar for pictures.    (KKY)

/collaboration/tools | Posted at 4:51pm

EEK Speaks

A blog about collaboration, community-building, and the various goings-on at Blue Oxen Associates, with occasional digressions on food and other vital matters.

Archives

April 2008 (1)
March 2008 (2)
February 2008 (10)
November 2007 (14)
October 2007 (4)
September 2007 (3)
August 2007 (7)
July 2007 (2)
June 2007 (7)
May 2007 (10)
April 2007 (14)
March 2007 (17)
February 2007 (12)
January 2007 (9)
December 2006 (3)
November 2006 (11)
October 2006 (23)
September 2006 (20)
August 2006 (22)
July 2006 (5)
June 2006 (19)
May 2006 (8)
April 2006 (5)
March 2006 (12)
February 2006 (10)
January 2006 (6)
November 2005 (14)
October 2005 (14)
September 2005 (10)
August 2005 (21)
July 2005 (2)
May 2005 (10)
April 2005 (7)
March 2005 (3)
February 2005 (7)
January 2005 (8)
December 2004 (5)
November 2004 (11)
October 2004 (7)
September 2004 (1)
August 2004 (9)
July 2004 (16)
June 2004 (1)
May 2004 (3)
April 2004 (8)
March 2004 (8)
February 2004 (12)
January 2004 (8)
December 2003 (12)
November 2003 (12)
October 2003 (3)
August 2003 (15)
July 2003 (20)

Categories

Subscribe

Related Blogs

Blue Oxen Associates
The Watering Hole
Hyperscope

Blog Roll (via Bloglines)
extisp.icio.us

Miscellaneous

GeoURL

Technorati Profile