Subject: Re: arch advocates
From: Mark Eichin <eichin@thok.org>
Date: 29 Aug 2002 18:20:00 -0400


kragen says:
> Try harder not to appear insane, especially in permanently archived

I'd like to put some emphasis on this, since you didn't reply further:
"What's Tom saying now" has become somewhat of a spectator sport,
among people who have little or no interest in fsb and no interest in
arch beyond "oh, kinda like cvs".  If only you could charge admission...

Now, if your goal is to get a performance art grant (which are notably
small) to fund your continuing efforts, that perception may have value.
Otherwise, the discrepancy between the reality you appear to observe
(as filtered through your email) and the reality a large number of
other people observe deserves your attention.

tom says:
> I think I do better in person than via email.

Then it is time to start spending more time on your email composition
skills -- you have the benefit of "all the time you want", you have no
excuse for not *using* that time to reread your compositions and try
to imagine the impact they'll have on you readers.  Possibly even get
a second opinion on them, if you have any doubt that they are
communicating what you intend.

Note that there is a "parallel credibility" issue here -- if you are
failing to express yourself reasonably (or if you express yourself in
a way that people assume you must be, for otherwise they would dismiss
you outright) in one context (fsb, arch-dev) people are somewhat less
likely to take your architectural and design notions at face value,
and you have a larger barrier to overcome before people even look at
them (since there are lower-overhead higher-obvious-reward things to
look at first.)

As another "reality check" benchmark: you come across as more
aggressive and more convinced of your view of reality than Richard
Stallman did, and his driving idea was, I think even you will admit,
much more signifant.  Stallman succeeded in having his view accepted,
not totally, not perfectly, but certainly by a large audience.  You
might consider his example more carefully.