Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: New Members, Board of Directors, other LogFest results

From: Robin Lee Powell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:12:15 -0700

On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 01:58:49PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> At 08:42 PM 7/23/02 -0600, you wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 08:27:55PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> >Who is going to sign up knowing that they're going to do the entire
> >dictionary themselves, with no more tools than their text editor, or
> >whatever they produce for themselves?
> 
> I did, around 17 years ago for JCB.

Yes, exactly.

> >(As, there apparently isn't any sort of middle ground when
> >volunteering. Otherwise you surely would've taken up one of the many
> >people who has said "What can I do?" on their implicit offer.)
> 
> I don't know of any middle ground. Short time jobs tend to be done by
> the people who think of them. Collaborative jobs with short time
> components, other than the wiki which has no time constraints or
> organization to it by design, don't consistently get done: look at the
> current status of the phone game, which takes only people making and
> *keeping* a future commitment of part of one evening, and yet half the
> time we can't get a chain of 10 to completion.

Uhhh, there's a difference of importance between the dictionary and
b0rken phone that I think people are aware of. 8)

> Alice was a somewhat larger group effort, but from what I gather, most
> of the work was done by one or two people who almost certainly spent
> more than 40 hours on what they did over a period of time.

I'd put it at closer to 3 or 4. But you'll note it *did* get done.
Altohugh it's in need of an edit or two.

> The most common tool used to develop cross-platform stuff these days
> seems to be Java, which also, so I've been told, makes net-based Java
> applets among the most dangerous security threats to a home computer;
> we have Internet Java disabled on all but one of our computers, and I
> allow them only with a security prompt.

It's not *that* bad, IMO. But then, I don't use my Windows machine for
anything other than games and connecting to my unix machine.

> I can't do so, because I don't know the languages (and I don't pretend
> to be the programmer that some of you are - I moved from programming
> into requirements analysis back in the late 70s, and have never done
> more than dabbling since then. But I'm not opposed to someone else
> producing such a tool. Unfortunately, the track record is that these
> tools ALSO seem to have to be one-man jobs, that take far more than 40
> hours. Cowan started the Elephant right after LogFest last year,
> feels unable to delegate pieces, and hasn't finished, and that is only
> ONE of the sorts of tools that we need for on-line collaboration. You
> had some ideas for dictionary tools, but I don't know your status on
> any of them. I've learned the hard way on this project not to design
> big plans around what people say they will do, only around what
> actually gets done.

I think all that Jay wants at this point is a, "Yes, an online
dictionary collaboration tool would be really nice, and the LLG would
appreciate it". You can say that without committing to anything or
making big plans.

Hey, here's a radical idea: you could assign *parts* of the dictionary
to people. Like ask for volunteers for all words starting with b, or
something.

> >Most likely, they use special software, developed for having a group
> >collborate on a dictionary. Why should Lojbanists do any different?
> 
> Because we don't have man-years of software development time and money
> available. 

I know that Jay could whip up something functional and web-based in a
weekend.

If he doesn't get his ass on it pretty soon, I'm gonna do it myself.

> >I'm trying to get people to accept the idea of working on the
> >dictionary in a sane, community-based fashion, with special tools
> >designed to ease the burden.
> 
> That's fine. But who will write the tools AND GET THEM DONE. LLG
> can't rely on promises, 

Dammit, there's this point you seems to be missing over and over and
over:

Nobody is asking you to rely on *ANYTHING*.

We're asking you to try new methods of getting things done, because what
you are currently doing isn't working. That doesn't mean that you have
to take every promise that everyone ever makes as proven gospel.

> > > I'll be honest that part of the reason I've had trouble being
> > > motivated to work on the dictionary is that even if we get it
> > > done, we have no way to publish it.
> >
> >There are plenty of other people for whom that is not a problem. Me,
> >in particular. There are a number of others who'd be thrilled to
> >produce an electronic version of the dictionary, setup so that the
> >latest and greatest data can be easily exported into a printable
> >form, so that individuals can print it off themselves. (This happens
> >quite a bit, particularly when it takes you 3 months to deliver the
> >CLL to someone.)
> 
> I understand, and I have no problem with people doing so. Have I told
> you, or even *suggested*, that you aren't allowed to print off copies
> of your PDF dictionary?

Again, waving the Magic LLG Approval Stick would go a long way to
getting things done.

This may surprise you, but just because the LLG says, "Hey, that's a
good idea, we'd love it if you did that" *DOES* *NOT* mean that the
world falls apart if it doesn't get done. Seriously.

And despite other statements that you have made, you *are* allowed to
make such statements in an official capacity. I've been President in
Robert's Rules organization, I know this is the case.

> > > Those of you who are more net-based than I can be motivated by a
> > > net-based dictionary, but content-wise the initial dictionary will
> > > not be all that far from what is in the current dictionary files
> > > (just editing and formatting the exiting file, plus adding some of
> > > whatever we have time to add, is what LogFest decided the first
> > > dictionary would be a LONNNG time ago.) In that sense, the pretty
> > > version you made up IS "the dictionary".
> >
> >The minutes are incomplete, then, as I believe I've read all the ones
> >currently available, and nowhere is that description of the
> >dictionary provided.
> 
> 1997 minutes 

Which we can read where?

> I just realized yesterday that Nora was supposed to do indexing for
> Nick's books, which she never did and I don't think any one else did,
> though I haven't looked lately. 

Automated indexing is trivial.

Of course, no-one here knew that that was being sought, because there is
no list, anywhere, of "Tasks the LLG Would Like To See Done". See
above.

BTW, you're allowed to accept multiple promises for the same thing;
better chance of it getting done anyways.

> My own priority after business matters that never get done as it is,
> is getting our address list up to date so that I can put out a JL/LK
> that will get to the people who have paid for it; I haven't had time
> for that either.

Another task which you have refused to delegate (I specifically asked
last year).

> >But when CVS seems to be beyond a number of Lojbanists,
> 
> You've finally realized this!!!

You seem to be proud that we're surrounded by people who can't follow
the simple, detailed instructions that I presented. There are over 20
people, IIRC, with CVS accounts. It's not that hard.

> >or they refuse to use anything which isn't AOL-istically simple, then
> >some sort of cooperative framework needs to be developed so that
> >they're not stepping on each other's toes and duplicating effort.
> 
> And that cooperating framework will likely have to be AOL-istically
> simple. Hence flat text files.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH!

That was a very funny joke.
</sarcasm>

You can't *really* think that flat text files are simple by today's
standards, can you? By the standards of 1975, sure. But simple in
today's eyes is a web interface.

> > > But publishing the current dictionary files in print, is far more
> > > than we can afford. If publishing Nick's books increases our
> > > revenue stream, that could change in a year or two.
> >
> >Just because something official exists doesn't mean you've got to
> >print it and sell it yourself!
> 
> If it is published, then people will send orders to me.

And you can delegate them.

> >All the LLG would need to do is distribute an official PDF of the
> >dictionary, and say that printed copies of the unmolested PDF are
> >also official. Then individuals could go to Kinko's, or use their own
> >printer. Or maybe some Lojbanist would print off the PDF on request
> >and sell it.
> 
> They can do that now. But it isn't official. And I don't think we
> should put the "official" label on things that are ad hoc, even if
> they are likely to be ad hoc for a long time. We set a standard for
> ourselves with the quality of CLL, and we have to live up to that
> standard with the other baseline books. 

Umm, yeah. *Whatever*. I'm sure people will prefer nothing to
something that's not all gorgeous. Yeah. Good call.

> > > We could talk about publishing a set of materials on CD-ROM, but
> > > my understanding is that CD-ROM dictionaries are already becoming
> > > passe because on-line lookup is more convenient for those who need
> > > convenience, and the download time for the current file is quite
> > > short.
> >
> >The current ASCII files are likely inconvinent if not impossible for
> >the kinds of computerphobic users some people claim we need to
> >target.
> 
> Anything more sophisticated is likely to be worse.

*Boggle*. Yeah, a web-lookup form is *much* more complicated.

> > > If it were merely a matter of sending out the books, I would
> > > prepackage 40 books and send them when the orders come in. It's
> > > the paperwork, and the specific rules needed to satisfy various
> > > booksellers that want a receipt with order number, or multiple
> > > books in an order shipped in one box.
> >
> >Well when it takes 3 months for somebody to get their book, it seems
> >to me as though there is something rather wrong with something.
> >Presumably there isn't 3 months of paperwork, now matter how hard you
> >try to drag it out, so I figure that there must be some sort of slow
> >down in actually getting the book shipped out.
> 
> Actually it IS paperwork. I no longer have dedicated Lojban office
> space in my house (the kids have filled it up), so the Lojban office
> is a series of not-well-organized file boxes. Orders are typically
> written down on whatever piece of paper is handy because we can't
> manage to keep a pad by the phone. It takes me a few solid hours to
> get set up to do Lojban work, and I don't have a few hours for Lojban
> work on a regular basis anymore. And with that intermittency, I have
> lost orders when I don't do things carefully, double and triple entry
> bookkeep, etc.

Boy, if there's a better argument for you to delegate this stuff, I
can't imagine what it is.

And despite all of the above, you lost my order the first time.

> > > >Open a Fedex account.
> > >
> > > Isn't Fedex a good deal more expensive than even UPS, much less
> > > book rate postage? We are getting $5 for shipping, and packing
> > > envelopes cost around a buck. We lose money shipping amazon
> > > orders, since the UPS for them is $6-8 for one book.
> >
> >If you were actually interested in this scheme, then pricing with
> >other carriers could be investigated. Maybe due to the non-profitness
> >of the LLG, they might be willing to give the account a break.
> 
> Frankly, I don't have time to investigate.

GAAAAAH!

DELEGATE IT! If you're not going to do it anyways, it DOESN'T MATTER if
the person who promises to do it doesn't!

> > > That sounds reasonable to me. The question is whether there will
> > > be volunteers who will dependably follow through.
> >
> >And if they don't follow through, what happens?
> 
> The mild semblance of order in this disjoint organization, that I have
> maintained with difficulty, ceases.

Stagnation and order are not the same thing.

> >As I understand it, you currently get snailmail and then don't
> >attempt to respond unless it has an email address. How can the
> >volunteer do anything worse than what you're already doing?
> 
> Respond and not have it duly recorded that he did so, so that we carry
> an order obligation on our books that has been filled. 

How about this:

When you get a request, you *immediately* send the info to a group of
volunteers, all of whom have copies of the Red Book. When it gets sent
out, they inform you. Then, at your leisure, you do the appropriate
paperwork.

Yes, it is theoretically possible that a volunteer would not send out
the book but say they had.

Kinda of like happened with my order.

> > > We've had a history of people signing up for things and not
> > > actually doing them.
> >
> >Right now, you're signed up for everything on the list, and you're
> >not getting any of it done. How can things get any worse?
> 
> At least now I know what is and is not getting done. And since I'm
> legally responsible, that is something I find necessary.

I can't formulate a coherent response to that.

> >You Can Not Get Everything Done Yourself. Even if you worked Lojban
> >as a paid, fulltime job, _and_ your hobby, you *still* wouldn't be
> >able to do everything.
> >
> >Delegation is the most important thing a manager can learn. And as
> >the President/CEO of the LLG, you're the manager.
> 
> I manager with no dependable resources has nothing to manage.

Oh, that's just incorrect. Volunteer organizations deal with this stuff
all the time. See above.

> >So Delegate. What on earth have you got to lose?
> 
> I've tried with less important tasks, and been bitten. 

You feel 'bitten' because you are attached to every single promise being
kept.

Try accepting the promises and giving them approval whilst
simultaneously assuming they won't get done. Worst case: nothing
happens, same as now.

Best case, it gets done. You'd be surprised how much a stamp of
pseudo-approval will motivate people.

> But ultimately it is up to the voting membership, if they think I can
> delegate more than I am. That is one reason they are there.

IIRC, when I brought up the possibility of delegating getting the
address list done, you flat-out refused. You made it fairly clear that
it was in your possession and you wouldn't release for any reason.

> What do I stand to lose? 16 years of time and emotional investment in
> this project if it falls apart. I think the language will survive my
> personal involvement now. I'm not sure the organization is so solid.

Read the above paragraph several times. Imagine JCB saying it about
Loglan. Read it again.

If you are not frightened by what you just said, I'm not sure you and I
are capable of communicating usefully on this topic.

BTW, I, personally, haven't even the slightest attachment to the LLG as
an organization, but I have a lot of attachment to lojban. I think that
waiting 4-6 months for a copy of the CLL is doing much more harm to
lojban than collapse of the LLG would. Nevermind the address list
fiasco.

In closing, I want to share a phrase my step-dad often uses. He teaches
very high-priced corporate organization seminars, so he kinda knows his
stuff.

"If what you are doing is not working, stop doing it, and do ANYTHING
else."

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest.
le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku'i .oi le so'e datni cu to'e te pilno
je xlali -- RLP http://www.lojban.org/