I aree with you strongly. (01)
when we write articles, we are forced to do the refactoring.
And that level of writing and rewriting is a good thing for the
depth of understanding and quality of presentation. (02)
It is also costly and painful. So we don't do it unless we have to. (03)
More interestingly, the pile of email messages may contain
many good ideas that can be refactored many different ways.
And so, the value is postponed until we have a economic reason to
push a refactoring in a specific way. IE, am I writing an
article about document structures, or about social structures. Both
have been active in this thread. (04)
So I can see the economic process for creating articles. (05)
I have not yet seen the economic process for refactoring. Other
than good teams which practice good focus and specific refactoring
habits, will likely have a stronger process. (06)
However, most teams seem to follow the lead of a small number of
people. So the value of refactoring is really not in the intra team
dynamics, but in the inter-team dynamics. (07)
We still help each other as though we are seperated economically
and socially. (08)
If I wrote an article or got a grant and got paid for it, what is
the economic process that benefits the group of people who helped me
get to the point that I could write the article and I could
write the grant? (09)
"Garold (Gary) L. Johnson" <dynalt@dynalt.com> writes: (010)
% In order to get a function or service paid for, it has to be valued by
% someone enough to be willing to pay for it.
%
% Even with all the buzz about the need for knowledge management and the
% massive initiatives, those working in the area are trying to get a different
% result without anyone having to do anything different - a working definition
% of stupidity.
%
% Absolutely every effort at persisting information from collaboration has
% concluded that refactoring is a necessity, regardless of the method of
% collaboration, and yet we don't do it.
%
% When the result is going to be a published paper work, there are essentially
% endless rewrites and refactoring done - drafts versions, updates, edits.
%
% On some level there is a lack of belief that a collection of emails actually
% contains knowledge that needs to be made any more persistent than the fact
% that it was communicated to others.
%
% At work we are using a web based service that is essentially a version
% control system for documents. They call it a collaborative environment, but
% ...
%
% Even given that, the amount of refactoring is low.
%
% Part of the irony is that without reference to the earlier versions and the
% discussion / discoveries involved, there is no solid basis on which to
% determine that the current state of the refactoring is more nearly correct
% than the last one. It has worked that way for as long as we have had
% documents - refactor by rewriting, and there doesn't appear to be any
% impetus to change.
%
% Thanks,
%
% Garold (Gary) L. Johnson
%
% -----Original Message-----
% From: John Sechrest [mailto:sechrest@peak.org]
% Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 5:02 PM
% To: yak@collab.blueoxen.net
% Subject: [yak@collab] Re: blogs? -> refactoring
%
%
% I agree with you. It comes down to commitment on one end
% and cost/benefit (at least as percieved) on the other.
%
% If someone were to spend the time doing the refactoring.
% Or if a program did the refactoring, the material becomes
% measureably more useful.
%
% However, there is a cost to getting this. Which most people
% don't want to pay.
%
% And one of the reasons that we get refactored articles in the
% paper world is that there is pay back for doing the work.
% In terms of real money.
%
% What does it take to pay someone to do refactoring for you?
%
% It seems that the job of "wiki editor" is a good one. But we
% have no means of managing and paying for it.
%
%
%
%
% cdent@blueoxen.org writes:
%
% % On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, John Sechrest wrote:
% %
% % > Is the real problem with both blogs and email lists that they
% % > never get refactored into a summary?
% %
% % Yes.
% %
% % Well, no, actually. The problem is with the people not the
% % technology. We can say and know that to some extent the features
% % in a technology will influence the degree to which a people will
% % exert effort for a desired behavior, but if the behavior is never
% % understood as producing a desirable outcome it doesn't matter how
% % the technology enables or prevents the behavior.
% %
% % People have argued with me endless about this, but I've seen it
% % over and over again: people who see the inherent value in
% % refactoring, summarizing and referencing are willing to pay the
% % price. [snip]
%
% --
% This message is archived at:
%
%
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=MIEJJJFBHJEBDEKGPHOPEEPPEPAA.dynalt@dynalt.com (011)
-----
John Sechrest . Helping people use
. computers and the Internet
. more effectively
.
. Internet: sechrest@peak.org
.
. http://www.peak.org/~sechrest (012)
--
This message is archived at: (013)
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=200312071643.hB7GhT405075@jas.peak.org (014)
|