Click here to skip to   May25   May26   May27   May28   May29   May30   May31   Jun01   Jun02   Jun03   Jun04   Jun05   Jun07   Jun08   Jun10   Jun11   Jun12   Jun18   Jun25   Jun26   Jun27   Jun28   Jun30   July 02   July 03   July 08   July 09   July 10   July11   July12

From: Donald

The question, in its most abstract, Rorschach-like form is:

How does SHAPE work?

I think I get the mechanical details; it's more the "culture" I'm interested in.

My more particular, concrete questions are:

What controls the starting of new threads?

Which came from my looking over the archive of past threads, reading one, and wondering:

If I find something that I want to discuss further in an archived thread, how do I make that happen?

Jerry

I could answer these questions from my point of view, but I'm especially interested in how it appears to Shapers, how it works for them. For example, I'd like to expand the question list to include:

What controls your decision to contribute or not contribute to a thread?

 What controls your decision to continue following a thread?

Add these to Donald's excellent questions. (I'll keep your answers private, if your wish is to share them only with me - another mystery about how Shape works.)

From: Dwayne

What controls the starting of new threads?

In my experience, when I think of a question that I want SHAPE to discuss, I send it to Jerry asking for a new thread. He usually replies that he will put it in the queue.

What controls your decision to contribute or not contribute to a thread?

Sometimes I just can't help myself. I have found that some of us have experienced some things that others haven't. If I know something, others probably don't know it, so I contribute. There are many days when others contribute things that I don't know up until now.

From: Bob

Donald: How does SHAPE work?

SHAPE is a virtual meeting place where people self-select to share ideas with peers. The level of discussion is seldom present in workplaces I've encountered, because there is such a large, diverse pool of experience.

With that large a pool, there are always experiments and discoveries going on among the membership. SHAPE allows the members to air views and see how they play among smart people who aren't vested in "this has to work, or else!" mindset.

Ideas and suggestions get aired, critiqued, amplified or toned down. What emerges, is better than anyone started with, and there's a lot of humor along the way.

Donald: What controls the starting of new threads?

Emperor Jerry maintains a queue of potential new topics. The number of threads is always fixed at 5. Perhaps that's the conservative side of "The Magic Number 7 Plus or Minus 2." Threads seem to have a life cycle of starting either fast or slow, then growing to full debate, and eventually waning when no further contributions dribble in for a week at a time.

When Jerry feels that the thread has gone stale, it's archived and one is cut loose from the waiting queue.

Jerry

You're wrong about that Emperor business. I'm the Grand Imperial Potentate. You may consider yourself corrected.

Bob

Donald: If I find something that I want to discuss further in an archived thread, how do I make that happen?

You have several choices:

- email a particular member for a 1-on-1 discussion

- come up with some new twist on the topic and email Jerry with your desire to discuss further.

- If you are an AYE conference member, create or hook-in a new Wiki page on the AYE Wiki at:

http://www.ayeconference.com/wiki/

* Many (most?) SHAPErs participate or at least browse the Wiki at AYE and you can just do it.

Jerry

Many

Bob

The delay time in SHAPE's waiting queue is fairly unpredictable, but then, that gives you some chance to refine your thoughts.

Jerry: What controls your decision to contribute or not contribute to a thread?

Early on, I want to have something either first hand experience or questionable "knowledge" to air. In the middle stages, there is more give & take, and I may find aspects to comment on even if the overall thread is not in my experience zone. After a while, I find that most of what I might say has been said or argued.

Jerry: What controls your decision to continue following a thread?

I can't recall more than one or two threads in 3 years that I haven't followed, whether I contributed or not. The conversations always yield gems worth reading.

-- But maybe that's just my take.

Jerry

That's exactly what I want, from you and every Shaper. Your take.

From: Sherry>

What controls the starting of new threads?

If I had a topic or a question, I would send it to Jerry and perhaps it would start a thread. I have noticed that urgent requests (at least sometimes) seem to show up faster and some questions go to the SHAPE news section.

Jerry

That's right. If a Shaper is writing about a current situation in which they're immersed, it goes to the top of the queue.

The News is for stuff that doesn't require a response for all Shapers to read. It's not a discussion point, but an announcement. Sometimes, you may want to respond directly to the announcer.

Sherry

What controls your decision to contribute or not contribute to a thread?

If I feel that I have something relevant to say about a thread, based on where discussion is now, OR if I have something that I really want to say about something earlier in a thread, I will contribute. As Bob said, I often find that what I might have said has been said already.

Jerry

It's a remarkable quality of Shape that by and large, Shapers only contribute when they have something to say, or a question to ask. This differentiates us from forums that people seem to use as a graveyard for their emotional garbage.

Sherry

What controls your decision to continue following a thread?

Primarily time. If I am not working and am at home, I read everything. If I am working, I try to follow any thread that really interests me. There are so many contributions to some threads that it can be difficult to keep up. When I first joined SHAPE, a new thread started and I was having trouble finding time to read at home, so I thought I would print off the thread and read it on the bus. After 2 days, the thread was already 25 pages. So much for that idea. Sometimes I can keep up at lunch. I am actually caught up now for the first time, but I have not worked in 2 months, so I have had time to catch up on stuff.

From: Donald

Jerry: What controls your decision to contribute or not contribute to a thread?

I've started to contribute a couple of times, but not actually made the posts. In one case, something that was written had gotten me riled up. That didn't get sent because of a system "problem" on my end. For which I am now grateful. In the other case, I started because I thought I had a new viewpoint to offer. But after further consideration, I thought I wasn't saying anything that actually contributed to the thread, so I cancelled it.

Jerry

Isn't it great to have such great people in a community!

Donald

Jerry: What controls your decision to continue following a thread?

I've followed all the threads since I've joined, except for the Open Source writing. My feeling is that SHAPE's regular contributors are more experienced than I, so I'm trying to absorb as much as possible while I have time.

Jerry: You're wrong about that Emperor business. I'm the Grand Imperial Potentate. You may consider yourself corrected.

Win one for the GIPper!

Jerry

It's nice to be appreciated with your own personal acronym. Thanks!

From: James A

Like everything else in this world, SHAPE sometimes works better than at other times, depending on how one chooses to use it. Some of like to use it as a forum to expound on ideas, some of like to use it to show how smart we are. As Dwayne said, many of us learn things, and some of learn that things we knew may not be totally true.

Sometimes I like to use the forum to challenge others' thinking on various topics. However, these challenges are not always accepted, and that's OK, too.

The interesting thing about SHAPE is the breadth of knowledge that is brought to bear. I would say that I think SHAPE works best when comments are relatively brief and to the point. It's sometimes hard to maintain a dialogue when overlong soliloquies are posted.

What controls the starting of new threads?

When I have an idea for a new thread, I send it to Jerry. Sometimes he accepts it, sometimes he modifies it, and sometimes he rejects it (but always with appropriate feedback). A few threads have sprung from discussions I've had with Jerry outside of the SHAPE forum.

If I find something that I want to discuss further in an archived thread, how do I make that happen?

As someone else suggested, there are no rules against starting or continuing a discussion with SHAPE contributors outside of the forum. Given an interest, I'm sure Jerry would consider reviving an archived thread, it has happened before.

What controls your decision to contribute or not contribute to a thread?

Simply a belief that I have something I'd like to say on a topic and the time and desire to say it. I enjoy the give and take and I always learn something from the feedback. When, on occasion, I am thanked for a comment, I really appreciate that.

Jerry

And I thank you for telling other Shapers that. Appreciations are always appreciated.

James A

What controls your decision to continue following a thread?

My interest in the topic and desire to learn. Very long postings tend to diminish this, however (so I'll stop now).

Jerry

Well done. I agree about long postings. From time to time, I'll suggest to an individual Shaper that s/he keep down the length, or split a post into several days' worth of posts. Sometimes they even follow my suggestions.

From Charles

How does SHAPE work?

My perception is that the individuals who post to SHAPE seem to have a desire to improve the way things are done and do not want to remain in the status quo ante. So they contribute

What controls the starting of new threads?

I send in things to Jerry that I am interested in learning about and understanding.

If I find something that I want to discuss further in an archived thread, how do I make that happen?

At PSL I specifically asked Jerry about why do books on software gloss over software maintenance. He said for me to search the SHAPE archives and see if my question was addressed there. If not, then I should send in a question. I did and to my surprise and I was surprised at being surprised I noticed that there was a lack of discussion of software maintenance in the SHAPE archives. So I send in some questions. The first thread died. Now Jerry has reinvigorated the discussion.

What controls your decision to contribute or not contribute to a thread?

I post when I have direct experience or wish to ask a question, or get clarification on a point.

What controls your decision to continue following a thread?

I continue the thread as long as I am learning something new, or there are interesting ways of saying old things (This usually happens by the way!)

From: Bill

How does SHAPE work?

Pretty well.

What controls the starting of new threads?

Jerry. Anyone can send suggestions to him and he will put them into a mysterious "queue". I've done that a few times and so far one has made it out of the queue. It would probably be interesting to see what's in the queue but that isn't visible to us.

Jerry

Interesting idea. FYI, there are about 80 thread ideas in the queue right now, some dating back several years. I don't think I want to dump them on you, but if anyone is interested in what happened to one of their contributions, they can always send me an email. I'm not trying to be mysterious, just helpful - keeping the threads lively, relevant, balanced, and giving everybody a chance.

Bill

If I find something that I want to discuss further in an archived thread, how do I make that happen?

You "just" have to convince Jerry that its a good idea. That probably involves making him believe that lots of other people besides you will contribute to the reactivated thread.

What controls your decision to contribute or not contribute to a thread?

I follow the regular habits that I have developed over the years for contributing to forum or threaded discussion. The people who contribute are probably the ones who would normally contribute in other on-line forums and the quiet ones are probably quiet most places. Probably that's a matter of how much self-confidence they have in their ability to "contribute". Jerry is good at providing positive feedback but it's easier if you develop an attitude of contributing without expecting a return. Just toss your contribution out into the ether.

I will contribute if I think my experiences give me something helpful to say. I will contribute if I feel either a "wrongness" or "incompleteness" or "skewedness" to a discussion and want to counter balance or fill in a gap. Occasionally I will contribute as purely an intellectual exercise.

What controls your decision to continue following a thread?

I will normally scan all messages in all threads but often my reading is cursory. I follow more closely the ones that I can relate to well. For me probably about 1/3 of the threads are "interesting" and 2/3 are "uninteresting". Generally the threads related to software development in large groups or big projects fall into the uninteresting category since that is foreign to my experience. For example I've never seen a "testing group" so I'm not interested in discussing whether one should be flushed or not.

Jerry

You know, Bill, you may have given us an insight into why Bertrand's manager wanted to flush the testing group.

From:, Shannon

What controls your decision to contribute or not contribute to a thread?

I need to have some thought I would like to contribute.

I think of more responses than I actually write up. I also write up more responses than I send in. Sometimes what I am going to say gets said before I get around to writing, editing, and sending a contribution. Sometimes what I write down does not look important once it is written. Sometimes what gets written looks like so much babble, and I can't or don't get it fixed to send in.

Jerry

All of which contribute to learning that's not visible to us, but learning all the same.

One of the reason I sometimes limit responses or ask for shorter contributions is to allow the more pensive people like Shannon a bit of time to make their contributions before others snap off a list of fifty things, thus preempting the topic. It's not a judgment of the quality of the ideas, but another little thing to ensure as wide participation as possible.

Shannon

What controls your decision to continue following a thread?

Time, if I am short of it, some or all SHAPE reading gets cancelled. I have found that postponing reading doesn't work. Too much material is generated. If I haven't been reading for awhile, and then have time, I'll wait till new threads are started and follow them. I won't try to catch up and follow the existing threads.

Sometimes there will be a post that makes my eyes glaze over. I used to completely drop a thread when that happened. Now I skip the post. Later posts sometimes do not make sense, because I haven't read what they are responding to.

Jerry

Another reason to avoid long posts. <end hint>

From Jim

What do XP and Northern Ireland have in common?

I generally do not write anything for publication - not for books, journals or magazines - but when I write for SHAPE I truly try to put forth my best effort. I want to have something to say that is worth saying, precisely stated, and relevant to the topic. I am far more careful in writing my SHAPE contributions than I am in, say, a letter to my brother. Quite a few members of SHAPE are personal friends, including Jerry, and in my mind, I am writing for them. I want my contributions to be written in my own voice, to reflect my (sometimes peculiar) sense of humor, so that people who know me will recognize that voice and read it as if I were speaking directly to them, and so that people who do not know me will get to know me a little. I write very carefully, read it over, edit, let it sit for a while and repeat the process before I send it.

Jerry

I agree with your sense of a community of individuals, each of which I know individually. Some Shapers I've never met face-to-face, and when I do (like at Shape Day at AYE), I''m always surprised by the way my mental picture differs from the real person's appearance. (I had pictured Shannon as very thin, clean-shaven, blonde, with wire rimmed glasses. He wasn't.)

But I'm never surprised by the person inside, as opposed to their external appearance. That makes me think that most Shapers put their real, inner self here as well as they are able.

Jim

I find that when I read the daily newspaper there are topics that I follow and those that I completely ignore. Hockey and baseball are ignored. Lately I've been following SARS and news about China. Sometimes I am surprised. There was a period of about 20 years when I ignored all news from Northern Ireland because it always consisted of someone blowing someone up and some truce being violated. (Like European history: France and Germany had a war and Alsace-Lorraine changed hands.) Then I woke up one morning and presto, while I wasn't looking they seemed to have settled it! The first part of this pattern is repeating itself in Israel, I stopped reading about the repeating pattern of suicide bombings and retaliations. I hope they surprise me and settle it while I'm not looking.

Within IT in general I skip most articles about hardware (things I cannot change), "certification of professionals" (silly idea if the body of knowledge changes by the hour), and a few others. Likewise, on SHAPE, there are occasional, rare topics that I skip altogether although I usually follow at least the first few days of every thread. Some SHAPErs are people I know personally and respect so much that I would read their every word, twice, even if they were writing about "clouds I saw this afternoon". Others, I have learned, impress me as less thoughtful and get skimmed. It seems that a lot of issues just get discussed and discussed and no progress seems to be made, and I tune out for a while, and then several threads later, while I'm not looking, I check in and, surprise, surprise, they made some real progress while I wasn't looking.

From: Jay

I like to learn from others, and to share what I have learned, and this forum is all about learning. I also like to ask questions and get thoughtful sensible answers.

"What controls the starting of new threads?"

Being a neophyte on this forum I never gave it much thought.

"What controls your decision to contribute or not contribute to a thread?"

I am likely to contribute to a thread when one of the following is true:

(1) I've had experience of the subject being discussed.

(2) I am knowledgeable about the subject.

(3) I am puzzled or baffled by the subject (in which case I usually pose a question).

Jerry has a comment about most postings. Jerry's comments, and that of other SHAPErs, encourage me to contribute.

Jerry

Thanks for telling me that. That's what I'm trying to do, but once in a while my coyote self takes over and I just have to say something, whether it's encouraging or not.

Jay

"What controls your decision to continue following a thread?"

I read them all.

From: Danny

How does SHAPE work?

It continues to work because of a strong sense of community, quite a bit of it probably built by Jerry's other activities besides SHAPE.

What controls your decision to contribute or not contribute to a thread?

If I have something to say that hasn't already been said in the same way. If it's an active thread that I've had trouble following (which is many of them), I'm less able to know if it's already been said, and I'm less likely to contribute and continue reading.

What controls your decision to continue following a thread?

I'll chime in on the desire for short posts. I prefer highly interactive discussions. I generally send short messages, and hope that someone will reply with their own message to validate that I said something useful or provocative to someone. I usually don't have that experience on SHAPE, and I only participate sporadically.

Just like on Usenet, the longer a thread lingers, the less likely it is to be useful or on a topic you can predict from the title. The legendary pencil thread is an exception. :-)

Jerry

In some ways, I'd like it to be a fast interaction forum, but I couldn't support it if it were. So, it favors some styles and disfavors others. I think there's no way around it. If there is, I'd like to hear about it.

From: Donald

Bob wrote: You have several choices: email a particular member for a 1-on-1 discussion;...

I guess I've hesitated to do this for a few reasons:

I'm not sure, in the old threads, that people are still going to be at the address listed.

Jerry

It's okay if you bounce. And if you bounce, you can ask me and I'll try to supply a more recent address - if you can't find it on one of the current threads.

It is a problem, though, with email - there's no good address updating system in place yet.

Donald

Given that I'm a recent addition to SHAPE, I'll be contacting these people essentially out of the blue. Assuming I get through the spam filters, I'll still have to do the heavy social lifting of establishing who I am, what I want, and interesting the other party in the conversation.

Jerry

I think you'll find that Shapers are pretty tolerant. At the very worst, they'll politely tell you they're not interested.

Donald

In a related vein, I can find it hard to return to previous thoughts/arguments/discussions I've had in the distant past. So I'm not confident that the person I'd be contacting would be able to remember what they were thinking or interested in doing so.

Somehow I've gotten the idea into my head that it's a SHAPE cultural value to be present in the current threads/conversations, rather than spending my time noodling around in the archives. I suppose I'm projecting mightily here. :-)

Jerry

I hadn't heard that from anybody, but it is in my personal values to live in the here and now, rather than the past and the future. I'd be interested to hear what others have to say on this subject.

Of course, we did extract a number of threads into our Shape books, which are very good critically but don't seem to be selling like hotcakes.

Donald

My current thinking about emailing directly is that I'd do it if I had a specific, factual question that was very important to me, but otherwise, probably not.

Jerry

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

From: Bert

>> The delay time in SHAPE's waiting queue is fairly unpredictable

I didn't send thread topics very often to Jerry, but when I did, it was for really important stuff that I was stuck with and needed help right away. Each time, my thread sort of came through as soon as one was demoted. In the process, I learned that:

The queue isn't a First-In First-Out.

When I send a subject that is important, I raise my odds in the way I write it (thread candidates need to bait their readers for response and -more importantly- bait Jerry)

Jerry

Precisely. Sometimes I get thread headers that seem to be lectures, rather than provocative questions. When I've posted these, I generally get very little response.

From: Danny

Jerry said: In some ways, I'd like it to be a fast interaction forum, but I couldn't support it if it were. So, it favors some styles and disfavors others. I think there's no way around it. If there is, I'd like to hear about it.

You couldn't support it using the current process if it were more interactive. But if you wanted bad enough for it to be more interactive, you could change the process.

For exmample, you could switch from a moderated to a facilitated discussion, where contributions are automatically posted immediately.

Jerry

Then I couldn't correct typos (like "exmample" for example), fix English, and generally make all our contributors look better. I couldn't help them pose better questions, and I couldn't give the threads a nudge now and then (as on the maintenance thread).

All in all, it wouldn't be different from hundreds of other forums out there. I'm trying to trade speed for quality. That's the only value I can add, but I feel it's an important value.

For a faster forum, try the AYE wiki. It's faster, but it does have the advantage of

1. a screened population (only past and present AYE participants can post there, though all can read)

2. some filtering, as the AYE hosts constantly monitor the postings to keep them going, steer them, and encourage useful postings.

From: Sue

Personally, I prefer a fast, very interactive environment with several 'rooms.' Like Compuserve used to be... (You can certainly tell where I got my start in cyberspace. <g>) However, I can't always get what I want and I've adjusted to SHAPE's slower, filtered environment.

I contribute when I have something I really want to say, or to learn, or when I feel I can be helpful. My background (anthropologist, small business owner, self-taught programmer) is different enough that I sometimes feel intimidated by people with the 'proper credentials'.

I'll contribute a quick comment when something hits my funny bone. :-) I contribute when I have the extra emotional energy to get involved and to stay involved. There are times when I have things I want to say but my emotional 'pot' is so empty at the moment that I simply can't take on something else.

I don't remember ever getting an email from a SHAPER 'out of the blue' but I wouldn't mind if I did. I do a LOT of email and I'm comfortable with it. A quick introduction would help me place you, and a quick run thru my archives would refresh my memory. :-)

Jerry

One thing you won't get from Shapers is something I remember from our Compuserve days - a stalker sending you and other women on the thread creepy emails. Experiences such as that are one reason I've kept this forum the way it is.

From: James B

* How does SHAPE work?

The culture is a community of sincere intention, oriented around the idea that getting better at this making software thing is worth working on. Since the payoff for time spend on SHAPE comes only from the participation itself - what you learn, what you practice, the connections you make - it's pretty self-policing.

* What controls the starting of new threads?

Jerry picks something new when one or another dies down. Jerry also makes some effort to juxtapose thread topics that will influence each other. The cross threading isn't an accident as he admitted once, and has since denied. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

I am fascinated by the influence that the few, light controls he uses actually has on the forum.

Jerry

I''m trying to learn, and to practice what I preach. It's still a new technology, and we need people who know how to steer it.

James B

* If I find something that I want to discuss further in an archived thread, how do I make that happen?

Ask. Better still, mention that _someone else_ has asked about thus and so, and you're a little curious and / or want to help them out.

* What controls your decision to contribute or not contribute to a thread?

Generally, when I am discovering new things. I have experimented with other kinds of behavior until they seem to make sense - moderator like, jiggling sometimes, provocateur. I keep coming back to the discovery thing.

* What controls your decision to continue following a thread?

I follow them all. I read fast and the density of ideas, insights, or just plain good writing is high enough that it's no burden to skim everything. Figured in terms of nuggets / time vs. nuggets / time at work for example, it's a no-brainer.

From: Donald

When I thought up the question "How does SHAPE work?", I was wondering how it works in the anthropological/ethnographic sense - taboo, ritual, membership, power, value, groups, subgroups, etc.

I get the feeling that there are a fair number of anthropologically trained/oriented/interested/associated people in SHAPE-land.

Jerry

There are. I may have influenced them to more personal accounts by the questions I added. We'll see what comes up, but perhaps the whole topic is taboo. (But see Dennis's post, below. Nothing is taboo for Dennis.)

From: Brian

Q: What controls your decision to contribute or not contribute to a thread?

Right now, I am in a cursory-read mode. I skim once or twice a week, and occasionally contribute something which I think is humorous and/or useful.

It was not always thus: at times I have read every day religiously and my contributions have been central to a thread. And some times copious. Some others admit to being entertained by my humor.

Another time, I was in a foul mood and had had one too many and my contribution was, well, Lenny Bruce-esque, but Jerry put it in without editing. The next day, on reading my post, I learned a valuable lesson about self-editing. I guess that goes to "how SHAPE works."

Jerry

I wouldn't dare to edit Lenny Bruce. But at times (very few) I have gone in the next day and changed something on request of someone experiencing "morning after" thoughts.

Brian

Let me repeat. Useful. If I have a point that hasn't been made so far it a thread, I submit it.

This is from an individual who, without actually trying, managed to become the champion poster (by number of posts) on another forum.

I have always felt that everyone is entitled to my opinion, but, these days, I try not to be overbearing.

You will learn by reading the different personalities and what they have to contribute. Just like in real life, except that this group tends to be the cream.

Jerry

Sometimes whipped cream, but cream all the same. I agree, and I love cream. It's always been my feeling that working with the best people makes me a better person. I'm glad other Shapers feel that way. I guess, Donald, that's my social psychological training that's showing.

From: Dennis

I do not know how unique I am with respect to SHAPE, but I have never personally met Jerry or any of the contributors (well, except for myself, but I am still in the process of meeting that person). There may be some non-contributing or formerly contributing members I know, but that is not as easy for me to determine. I have seen photographs of some of the regular contributors, but almost all I know about those SHAPErs is what I have read over the past couple of years since I joined. I would expect that what I have written is about all they know about me.

Jerry

I have the impression, Dennis, that you look like Cary Grant. Don't disappoint me.

Dennis

* How does SHAPE work?

The modest subscription fee helps ensure that SHAPE works, as Jerry has points out on occasion.

As a culture, about the best I can say is that the following list of words and phrases seem to apply to the SHAPE community: intelligent, polite, civil, courteous, not rude, sometimes rough, occasionally crude, filled with good humor, friendly, gentle, interested in learning, reflective, respectful, knowledgeable, focused, distractible, curious, human, humane, fallible, thirsty, humble, therapeutic, committed, caring, witty (the Pencil Thread is proof of that were any needed), seeking, quiet, sane, helpful, wise, experienced, merciful, thoughtful, diverse, and loving.

I am sure there are many more adjectives that apply, as many as the qualities of the individuals who participate. But mainly, the point is that the shape of SHAPE, as with all cultures and communities, is not hard-cut like a diamond, and that makes it a very interesting place to be indeed. We are not all made in the same mold, and some of us might be more than a bit moldier than others.

* What controls the starting of new threads?

I think the question is "who" and not "what." Although a "what" may lead to an idea for a thread, a person must write up and submit the idea to Jerry where it goes into the "mysterious queue" others have mentioned; or is that the "mysterious Q" from Star Trek the Next Generation? In any case, Jerry is the other "who" controlling the starting of new threads. On occasion, Jerry is the originator of a thread topic.

Jerry is helpful to submitters in getting thread topics into shape for SHAPE. I think I have submitted four or five of them, and only one I can recollect is on hold. And that's OK.

* If I find something that I want to discuss further in an archived thread, how do I make that happen?

I have had a few e-mails from others now and then. I am always glad to respond and be helpful if I can. These have always been very polite exchanges.

* What controls your decision to contribute or not contribute to a thread?

"Every story you would like to tell has ended before you open your mouth." -- Barbara Kingsolver in "The Poisonwood Bible."

Such is the nature of stories. But not everyone has heard the story, and if anyone is to hear it, someone must decide to tell it.

For SHAPE I assess if I have a "story" worth telling, or if not a whole story then at least a point. There is F.E.A.R. to overcome sometimes, but the culture of SHAPE makes that only a very minor concern. I like that these submissions are of the nature of letter correspondence. The slowness in the unfolding of the conversation over time is a rhythm with which I am and can be comfortable, but then I am a recluse by nature, techno-phobic, and an exceedingly slow person.

Jerry

With an exceedingly quick wit. Shape may be shaped perfectly for you, though I try to provide something for everyone.

Dennis

* What controls your decision to continue following a thread?

I read all the threads. For me is was a simple decision to make that a daily habit. It is not one I have any regrets or second thoughts about. The material is just so amazingly fascinating and educational.

Or am I just like a cat following any old thread dangling in front of me?

Jerry

Dennis's comment about private emails reminds me of something that happens now and then. At times, one Shaper will privately email another about what's appeared on a thread and copy me. In that way, I sometimes get two or three exchanges between those two in one day. This is a way of speeding up the interchange, something that might satisfy Danny and Sue and others a bit. I guess I haven't encouraged it, though I haven't discouraged it either. Actually, once in a while I have encouraged it, to get some key questions answered with short turnaround. I just haven't publicized it - but I'm happy when it happens (if I can keep it straight).

From: Dennis

Jerry: "I have the impression, Dennis, that you look like Cary Grant. Don't disappoint me."

Ah yes. Well, ahem, er, . . . If we never meet, Jerry, then absolutely I can guarantee that with respect to that I will never disappoint you.

From: Shannon

Danny > Just like on Usenet, the longer a thread lingers, the less likely it is to be . . . on a topic you can predict from the title.

I think some of the most interesting SHAPE discussions have happened after topic drift.

Jerry

Maybe not most, but certainly many. I very seldom try to control drift. Shapers do it well for themselves, and when the drift, it's interesting drift, often not as drifty as we first thought.

Shannon

In one of the threads, you mentioned a format for the SHAPE emails that made it easier for you to do what you do. I've forgotten what the conventions were, and which thread they are in. I would be more likely to follow those conventions if they posted in some easy to reference place on SHAPE.

Jerry

Good idea. Part of the cultlure is that I just accept anything I get and work with it. I'd like it to be different, but I don't want to be a fussbudget. Besides, I can't think of a good place to put the information. Any ideas?

From: Dave

Here's my thought, ready for dissection by others:

SHAPE works because most SHAPERs believe that they know something,
but also believe that other people know things too.

Jerry

I like it. Even though I know you don't look like Cary Grant.

Dave

Oh, and this too:

<http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?BarnRaising>

a quote:

My latest analogy for good community spirit. Everyone getting together to help one person out with only the expectation that, if the tables were turned, the beneficiary would do the same for anyone else.

another:

Another aspect of barn raising is that when the entire town helps someone build a barn, then that person is beholden to the entire town. That person becomes loyal to the community. That person needs to help others build their barns, and help the community in other ways.

WDTRB (World Domination through Raising Barns)

Jerry

Or WDTRB (World Domination through Razing Barns)

From: James B

Donald Wrote: I was wondering how it works in the anthropological/ethnographic sense - taboo, ritual, membership, power, value, groups, subgroups, etc. I get the feeling that there are a fair number of anthropologically trained/oriented/interested/associated people in SHAPE-land.

Jerry has an anthropology bias, which he learned in part from Dani. Sue P. is an anthropologist. Some folks here are quite widely read, and share from that base. I'll hazard a guess that the SHAPE population compared to the general technical population, is more broadly read, and more acquainted with the humanities and social sciences.

The convention seems to be: Show up and offer your best stuff, and we'll treat it like your best offer of your best stuff. We'll find the good in your offer. Even when we disagree, we'll find the good in your willingness to make the offer. (And BTW, why wouldn't you want to work that way all the time. Seems pretty good to me.)

A friend of mine who joined in recent months read the archive - the whole thing - and all current threads. She commented something like: "I've never seen a bunch of people who are so brutal toward ideas and so kind toward each other. And there's no history around each comment. At <her day job> it's all about history."

Jerry

Someday, she will write something directly to us. She's obviously creeping closer.

All of which reminds me that the major part of this culture is pretty much hidden from us - our readers. I'd guess there are about two or three times as many read-only Shapers than there are Shapers who ever send a post. And, as I've announced here several times, that's fine with me. I hope it's fine with everybody else, because that's probably the way it's going to stay. I love our readers, and I never know if one day one of them will pop in with a post of some sort.

And I love her comment. That describes very well the way I hoped it would be on Shape. That makes it a pleasure to sit down every evening for five years and read this inpouring of ideas and experiences.

From: Danny

Jerry says: At times, one Shaper will privately email another about what's appeared on a thread and copy me.... This is a way of speeding up the interchange, something that might satisfy Danny and Sue and others a bit.

Hmmm, very interesting (anthropological?) point. I tend to send private messages when I feel my energy level on a subject, or my expertise, is not on the same plane as the median of the group. You saw this recently on the experiential list, when James B brought me right back into the fold anyway.

It doesn't usually occur to me to copy Jerry when I do this, because it's hard to clearly stamp a message as private rather than "to the editor", and because I can't assume that Jerry is interested in every subject as both contributor and moderator. But if it's important, I can start to do that.

Jerry

Danny sent a private note to Sue today, and copied me. I got the message clearly that I wasn't to post it.

But you certainly don't need to notify me if you're corresponding outside of Shape. I onlly mentioned that in case you want me to pick up the correspondence for Shape. I am interested, though. Otherwise, that's another invisible part of Shape culture for me.

Every culture has invisible parts, or selectively invisible parts. I was reminded by Danny's post that there's another kind of invisibility on Shape, one we haven't seen for a while - deliberate anonymity.

I will make any post anonymous (except to me, of course) upon request, and the requester need not explain why that's desired. I will hold anonymous posts to a slightly higher standard, because I'm left with the responsibility if some anonymous person fails to behave well. But I've never had to alter any anonymous post - other than for grammatical reasons, just like any other post.

I have noticed, though, that Shapers tend to be less responsive to anonymous posts than they are to posts whose sender is identified. So, we now know two things about the culture - if you want to get responses to your posts, don't be anonymous and don't be long-winded. What else?

From: John

I am (or have been recently) a member of 4 different online communities:

* SHAPE Forum

* The Well (where I host the Java, Palm, XML and ADD conferences)

* The C2 Wiki

* The Extreme Programming Mailing List

I find the signal-to-noise ratio best here. I think that has something to do with Jerry's role. First, because he only updates the forum once a day, there's enough of a delay so that bad feedback loops can't happen. Second, because to post something stupid or pointless or hurtful here, you'd have to email it to Jerry.

Jerry

And, of course, I'm nine feet tall and weight 480 pounds - all muscle and bone and able to transmit myself through cyberspace and crush your brain into oatmeal.

John

It also helps a lot that most people here have had some background in interpersonal communications, have respect for one another, and are here to learn (as opposed to show off). Again, Jerry sets the tone.

I think any attempt to speed up the cycle time or take Jerry out of the loop would change the fundamental nature of SHAPE Forum, and not in a good way.

From: Bob

Jerry: I have noticed, though, that Shapers tend to be less responsive to anonymous posts than they are to posts whose sender is identified. So, we now know two things about the culture - if you want to get responses to your posts, don't be anonymous and don't be long-winded. What else?

It seems harder to respond to anonymous thread starters because the context of the poster is less visible. For example, Bert's current "Flush the Testers?" thread would be more abstract if I didn't have the flavor of his style from prior SHAPE messages. Having that deduced personality in the back of your mind makes it easier for me to shape a response.

It seems to me that familiarity lets us short cut some "perhaps..." cases in responses, as well as guess where "perhaps" is most likely indicated.

Jerry

That recognition of individuals is one way to define a real "community." I remember the village in Switzerland where Dani did her fieldwork. People could recognize any member of the village from behind, at dusk, in the one second it took them to cross the space between barns.

I remember when we first arrived. Dani had the name of a contact in the village - a Mr. Delarze. It turns out that there were twelve Mr. Delarzes in the village, but the first person we asked knew from the context exactly which one she was seeking.

From: Sue

SHAPE Anthropology:

A personal note - I like it when ideas get challenged, mine or others. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy enthusiastic agreement as well as anybody, and on the other end of the spectrum, I simply won't participate in a flame-fest. (Which never happens here anyway.) But I don't learn as much from agreement as I do when I see ideas challenged and discussed.

About the broader culture - Shape appears to attract a certain spectrum (of posters, anyway). Participants almost always appear to be experienced middle managers and/or experienced consultants. We don't seem to hear much about the CEO's world.

I'm a bit sensitive to it, because I'm the 'pointy-haired CIO' in a family business. I get fingers waggled at me for being an 'insensitive, pointy-haired boss', and I'm pretty sure I get called some pretty harsh things behind my back. Some of that is deserved. (I'm not a 'natural' people person and neither is my husband.) But I don't think all of it is and I would enjoy hearing from other people who have walked in my shoes. (Or sandals & riding boots... <g>)

Jerry

Well, of course, there's me. I've run my own business now for about as long as Sue's been alive. One thing, though, is that nobody ever accused me of being pointy-haired. I have no hair to point with.

From: Dwayne

Jerry: Good idea. Part of the cultlure is that I just accept anything I get and work with it. I'd like it to be different, but I don't want to be a fussbudget. Besides, I can't think of a good place to put the information. Any ideas?

How about on the left side of the screen, the pane that has

Workshops

Books

SHAPE Forum

Readings

Who are We?

Right under SHAPE Forum put "Suggested Syntax"

From: Donald

Shannon wrote: In one of the threads, you mentioned a format for the SHAPE emails that made it easier for you to do what you do

I believe that is part two of the please explain architecture thread. I just checked and it's in the January 3rd entry. I remember this because I'd read that thread in the last week or so.

Quoted here below:

Jerry

I try to be as accepting as I can of all kinds of formats, but once in a while I should give some tips to Shapers about what is best for me. Here's what I'd like:

1. Ordinary email, plain text.

2. Don't try to do html stuff for me. If you have to italicize, best to just do this _in italics_

3.If you want to indent, use one n-dash for one indent, two n-dashes for two indents. (More than two is probably not a good idea anyway, but I'll try to deal with it if you must.)

4. In the plain text itself, at the top, put a From: with your name and the email address you want other Shapers to use in contacting you. For example:

From: James B

5. If spacing is important, use hard spaces, not soft ones. HTML conversion eats soft spaces beyond one.

That's all I can think of now. Do your best, and I'll do mine.

Jerry

Thanks, Donald. Now, can somebody condense that for me so it will be clear, yet fit on the narrow menu as Dwayne has suggested?

From: James B

Jerry: Someday, she will write something directly to us. She's obviously creeping closer.

She claims to be intimidated by the rigor of the conversation(s). She's got that "insecure overachiever" thing that so many of us do. I haven't seen her anything like intimidated before, so I'm pretty impressed with that.

Jerry

Maybe we need another "insecure overachiever" thread.

James B

Danny: You saw this recently on the experiential list, when James B brought me right back into the fold anyway.

I asked first if that was OK to do. That's important, I think. And they were a couple of darn good comments you made. I learned from them, so I thought they might be useful to some other folks.

Jerry

Ah, yes. This reminds me of another part of Shape culture - what and when it's okay to copy stuff from Shape and pass it to others. We've got that somwhere in writing, too.

James B

Jerry: . . . if you want to get responses to your posts, don't be anonymous and don't be long-winded. What else?

Phrased as positive statements:

- Be yourself, and sign your posts

- Stay on point

I've noticed that people who do nothing but criticize vs. offer their own contributions don't last long on Shape. I think "Yes, and" is a very big part of getting responses. Some of the best threads had someone asking a sincere question, then staying with the thread as it rolled along. A couple big chunks of the Shape books are like that. Lots of "Yes, and."

From: Donald

James B Wrote: A friend of mine who joined in recent months read the archive - the whole thing - and all current threads.

I'm not really sure how to find a comfortable way of dealing with the archives. I find that I can't read most of the threads in a single setting. And I'm worried much of it won't stick if I can't see it as immediately relevant.

I've tried the search engine, but didn't find it particularly useful. I'm not sure what the percentages mean. I've considering making a local copy of the archive that I could index and run Sherlock against.

Jerry

Of course, I have a local copy, and just the other day, I ran Sherlock against it. (Actually, I ran Find against it, which has taken over some of Sherlock's power.) I recalled a thread on mentoring, and tried to find it for Dani, who was being asked to "mentor" somebody. I couldn't find it, though I did find the thread on coaching. I wonder if it exists, or is in my imagination.

Donald

The strategy I'm currently using is to read an interesting thread (meaning a thread with a title that caught my eye) from the archive whenever I have time. But now I'm thinking that maybe I should be reading the AYE wiki instead. Or all the books and articles referenced in the threads I've read.

I do have the two Roundtable books, but have been putting off reading them. In part because of the time I'm spending on SHAPE.

I think it was in More Secrets of Consulting (or maybe SoC or BTL) that Jerry talks about managing the ultra-mega-information overload we all face. My recollection of his advice is to find ways to get other people to do some of the processing for you, and also to make sure you spend your time on quality.

How do you assess the quality of threads in the archive?

Jerry

Nicely done. Modeling behavior is another important part of the Shape culture.

From: Michael

Jerry: I have noticed, though, that Shapers tend to be less responsive to anonymous posts than they are to posts whose sender is identified. So, we now know two things about the culture - if you want to get responses to your posts, don't be anonymous and don't be long-winded. What else?

I've been listening to several installments of a CBC radio series recently. The series is called "Ideas", and its mandate is about as open as its name. There are plenty of things there that would be of interest to Shapers, I think, so I'll post a reference to some of the archived shows; they're here:

http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/audio/archivedaudio95-02.html

One of the shows that ISN'T in the archives is an interview with the show's long-time host, Lister Sinclair. He hosted the show for a good long time, on the order of 20 years. He was asked what sorts of ideas stimulated him, what he tried to do. His answer (which may have been a quote) was "to see what everyone has seen, and think what nobody has thought". That was the first thing I thought of when Jerry posed his question above.

The reason that I like to visit SHAPE is to see that kind of insight from Jerry and the rest of the community. If you want to get responses to your posts, one of the ways to do it is to provide an insight or a perpsective that is unusual or fresh, or challenging, or stimulating. In my experience, it need not be your own insight; many people provide pointers to sources of interesting ideas (as I've tried to do above).

The remarkable is commonplace here, if you don't mind the paradox.

Jerry

I think you should add "genuine" to your list of attributes. Stuff that is too theoretical and too far removed from the poster tends not to get the same kind of response. We don't get too much of that any more - we may have learned as a culture. (Or maybe I tend to let those thread ideas stay in the queue?)

From: Danny

Somehow, the meta-discussions always seem to attract posts from me. :-) As the maintainer for many mailing lists, I'm very interested in online culture.

After all the discussions about politeness, it occurs to me that I've occasionally said negative things about SHAPE. I'm not sure if SHAPE itself falls on the side of ideas or people, so I'm not sure whether I should apologize.

Jerry

I wouldn't say you've said negative things. I'd say you've said informational things that some of us (maybe I) would have prefered not to be true of Shape. They've always guided me, and sometimes led to changes. What's negative about that? Shapers like you have helped to shape Shape. (How's that for meta-discussion?)

Danny

Jerry said: So, we now know two things about the culture - if you want to get responses to your posts, don't be anonymous and don't be long-winded. What else?

On the comp.software.testing newsgroup long ago, there was a discussion about the "luminary effect." If the first response to a question was by one of the recognized experts, then little discussion would follow because it appeared that the authority had already settled the matter. Because of this, the experts who wanted to encourage discussion would wait a while before answering (I wonder how many times they never remembered to go back and answer the orphaned questions). I don't think this affects regular contributors on SHAPE, but it may contribute to keeping the lurkers in lurk mode.

Jerry

I'm not very luminous myself (though I do seem to be attracting moths tonight), but I know some people think I am. So, if you study my comments, I think you'd find a pattern of trying to encourage further commenatary and not commiting myself to a position very early. Of course, once in a while, I can't help myself.

Danny

Shannon mentioned a specified format for the SHAPE contributions, and Jerry pondered where to post this information. If I don't have a place to put something that's important on my web page, of course I make a place. This example is related to process, but more like process rules/guidelines than process news. Keep in mind that this particular part of the culture isn't self-correcting, because we can't see what each other's raw contributions look like.

Jerry

I didn't put any restrictions on the "place." If you can think of a good place I can make, then suggest it.

Danny

But Jerry, I fear that my off-the-cuff suggestion won't be helpful to you, because I don't really understand what it is you need help with. At least, I know I've offered you advice in the past that wasn't helpful or compelling. (I'm practicing my consulting skills here.)

Jerry

Some was,;,some wasn't. That's part of what a consultant has to learn to live with. <sigh>

From: Keith

A long while ago, soon after joining SHAPE, I downloaded most of the archives into my Palm-compatible Visor using some software the converts HTML. (It's called "iSilo").

In the rare event that I'm without a book, I can happily read the archive. When I'm reading, I often copy good bits into the Visor "note-pad".

From: Dwayne

Thanks, Donald. Now, can somebody condense that for me so it will be clear, yet fit on the narrow menu as Dwayne has suggested?

Let me try again. I meant "put a pointer to the format for SHAPE emails in the left pane," not the format instructions itself.

Jerry

<duh>

Take a look.

From: Donald

John: It also helps a lot that most people here have had some background in interpersonal communications, have respect for one another, and are here to learn (as opposed to show off).

I think (or at least want to hope) that my primary motivation is learning. But I won't claim to be free of the desire to show off. Though I might put it as a desire to be recognized - for my good works and quality contributions. I probably have a survival rule to the effect of: "I must be recognized by important people."

Jerry

Then you'll have to send a picture, or I won't recognize you. Unless you look like Cary Grant.

Donald

Whenever I look at motives, especially my own, I find it doesn't take much work to find more than one. Though I'm a bit stumped currently about how to put this to good use.

Lest our most humble Grand Imperial Potentate suggest he's not important, I'll say that he's not the one who gets to make the decision, in this case.

Jerry

And you're not the one who gets to say. In fact, you have to be important to say that someone is not important.

Donald

James B: She claims to be intimidated by the rigor of the conversation(s). She's got that "insecure overachiever" thing that so many of us do.

I had a couple of thoughts of how Jerry could play with the thread queue to try to "out" more recently-joined or readers-so-far-only. One idea was to give every new member a skip-to-the-head-of-the-queue token. A related scheme would be to keep one of the five spots for thread ideas from folks who hadn't yet had a thread idea "published."

Jerry

I think I do that implicitly. Nobody gets left out, in any case.

Donald

Jerry: I recalled a thread on mentoring, and tried to find it for Dani, who was being asked to "mentor" somebody. I couldn't find it, though I did find the thread on coaching. I wonder if it exists, or is in my imagination.

Oddly enough, I was looking to see what there was on mentoring in the archive myself. I think I ended up reading the Communities of Practice thread. Having read it, I had the feeling that it wasn't so much about Communities of practice. Which lead me to think that what I should do sometime is create a map of the archived threads. Or maybe a series of indices.

From: Danny

Jerry: I'm not very luminous myself (though I do seem to be attracting moths tonight), but I know some people think I am.

It's what people think that's relevent for the "luminary effect."

Then there's also the "Jerry's wry humor effect" that may confuse people who don't know you well, and make them think you're mean. I suppose people figure it out eventually.

Jerry

Oh, I can be mean. Just try to harm one of my dogs, or set down a coke next to my computer.

Danny

Jerry: If you can think of a good place I can make, then suggest it.

When this thread has run its course, take the "E" off of "E How Does SHAPE Work?" on the left column and link it to a SHAPER information page.

Jerry

Good idea, but I've implemented Dwayne's version. Take a look and see if it works for you.

From: Dwayne

Jerry <duh> Take a look.

It works for me.

...and another thing. Something that I appreciate about SHAPE that I had not realized until recently is that the threads load relatively quickly over the Internet. It is all text, no pop-up ads, no fancy pictures, etc. This may turn off some people, but I like it.

Jerry

That was my intention. Up here in Pecos, we're lucky if we can get the phones to work at all, let alone work at more than 8kb/s.

We do post pictures, if they're a good way of making a point, but we don't get many. So few, in fact, that I remembered only at the last minute (because of JR's article) that I have a policy on where the pictures must be.

A while back, we had a request to post pictures of Shapers (everyone wanted to see if Dennis really looked like Cary Grant). I got a few (all good looking, I might add), but not enough to represent a good sampling. But those would have gone on the outside, as a kind of ad that said, "Why don't you join all these good-looking people?"

That's as close as we've had to any advertising on Shape (except for some self-promotion by various Shapers, me being the worst offender).

From: Donald

I've got a little negative emotional feedback loop going on between Jerry's first two comments in my June 1 post.

Me: ...I probably have a survival rule to the effect of: "I must be recognized by important people."

Jerry: Then you'll have to send a picture, or I won't recognize you. Unless you look like Cary Grant.

Me: Lest our most humble Grand Imperial Potentate suggest he's not important, I'll say that he's not the one who gets to make the decision, in this case.

Jerry: And you're not the one who gets to say. In fact, you have to be important to say that someone is not important.

It starts for me with the second comment, so I'll begin there. I don't understand your comment Jerry, given my reading of it and my intent in my original statement. I think I can understand and potentially agree with both your statements, if you had just written one or the other of them. But together, I don't see how it follows from what I was trying to say. So I feel that at least one person is mis-reading something, and I'd like to feel like we're understanding each other.What I was trying to say was that I feel like you are an important person, in certain respects, to me. And I was trying to do it in a humourous way that would forestall any attempt at even partial disavowal on your part. Maybe I should have included a smiley.

In regards to your first assertion in your second comment, if not me, and not you, then who?

Jerry

Both my comments were attempts at humor. The second one was intended to create a paradox making it impossible for anyone to say I was important. The first was a pun on "recognized."

You see, my jokes are obviously not good enough for me to be a luminary.

Donald

Feeling that my attempt at humour has been dealt with roughly, I now return to Jerry's first comment. I now find it funny only in the abstract, and only every other reading, at best. The rest of the time, I feel it is irrelevant. And that makes me feel dismissed. Which is a gross violation of my survival rule. I feel like the humour was aimed at the rest of the group to the exclusion of me, and so I feel excluded. Wound number three.

Jerry

I was attempting to appreciate your humor by feeding something humorous back. I know about that type of survival rule, and I know a lot about survival rules in general. One of the things I know is that when a person like Donald is able to make a joke about his own survival rule, it's on the road to being transformed into a more reasonable guide.

Donald

Jerry, once you've got that course on appropriate touching done, maybe you can do a course on appropriate humour, as my attempt has had momentarily (I hope) disastrous outcomes :-). Or maybe just a thread topic on all the ways humour can fail. Though I am not in a good enough humour to write it up at the moment.

Jerry

As you can plainly see, I would not be the right instructor for that course. In fact, I would be the dunce. My attempts failed, while yours succeeded. The worst part of my failures is the led you to believe that yours had failed. Shame on me.

Donald

Another potential thread topic would be how newcomers can smooth their integrating into existing groups - inspired in part by Danny's comments in his post following mine about some people not "getting" Jerry's humor. And then maybe we can do one on how hard it is to be human when the only place you exist is in the other person's head - by which I mean when our only contact is in print, online or on paper.

Jerry

I think the lesson here is to learn to make the best possible interpretation, not the worst - or even to defer interpretation until you have more feedback. I hope my comments about my attempts at humor are taken seriously, so you can go back and take my attempts at humor humorously. In my family, kidding back and forth was a way of showing affection. I sometimes forget that not all families are built that way.

From: Phil

Jerry: What controls your decision to contribute or not contribute to a thread?

Normally the length of the existing thread. The longer the thread, the less likely I am to contribute - probably because I'll assume that people have already covered the points I would make anyway.

Jerry

It's a good thing. Imagine what would happen to the dynamic if a few people said,"the longer the thread, the more likely I am to contribute." That's one definition of infinitely long threads.

Phil

What controls your decision to continue following a thread?

Depends how much free time I have, whether the thread is covering an area of particular interest, selfishly if I'm trying to find an answer myself!

Jerry

Another interesting point to notice. Selfishness helps Shape work. If we get too many altruistic Shapers, who are participating merely to inflict help on others, we'd fill the forum with overblown sermons, as I've seen on some forums.

From: James B

Donald: . . . if not me, and not you, then who?

Me. I'm in control here. (That's the humor part.) You're important Donald, because you are showing up. (That's the sincere & literal part.) Jerry is important too, but only because he worked so hard to make it impossible for someone to declare him important. (The first half of that is sincere & literal too.)

One problem with humor, is it turns on "sudden perception of incongruity." It's about two or more colliding meanings. It's hard enough to get one meaning clear and generally understood using written words, let along two at once. So humor often goes awry (Note pun on earlier comment re: Jerry's sense of humor.)

Jerry's particular kind of humor usually turns on language - structure, contents, double meanings, and so on. A lot like the parenthetical comments above. That's easy to miss if you're engaged with the meaning.

Although our Supreme Imperial Potentate does a lot of little things to make Shape work, he's not in it alone. He's got a saftey net. Folks will chime in if something is going squirrly. I have even on rare (very rare) occasion dropped someone a note. I don't know if anyone else has. I didn't ask.

The folks who last here all come with the offer: How can I help you offer your best stuff, along with the other "best stuff" offers I mentioned earlier.

So, how can I help you offer your best stuff? That's a big part of why I hang out here.

And it's all true because I said so. (Note the symmetry.)

Jerry

And not that it's not Jim's only reason, otherwise he would become one of those vacuous sermonizers (heaven forbid!).

From: Paul

Jerry said: I think the lesson here is to learn to make the best possible interpretation, not the worst - or even to defer interpretation until you have more feedback.<<

Interpreting people's intentions is a difficult thing to do. My initial reaction *used to be* to assume the worst intentions. Now, my default reaction is to assume better (not always the best) intentions.

Here, in SHAPE, the quality of the people here has made it easier for me to assume the best in people. Even Jerry's humor has, for me, been given that affordance. It's another way of saying that this is a safe environment because I assume that members don't intend to hurt me even when they do hurt me.

As Jerry pointed out, not all families had that safe environment or good intentions. We can choose to change our lives, here and now, not then and there to form communities where we are cared about and can care about others. SHAPE can be a prototype where that change can be practiced.

Jerry

Thanks for that explanation. Remember, everyone, that the P in SHAPE stands for "Practiced." We're not there yet.

From: Dennis

Jerry "I think the lesson here is to learn to make the best possible interpretation, not the worst - or even to defer interpretation until you have more feedback. I hope my comments about my attempts at humor are taken seriously, so you can go back and take my attempts at humor humorously. In my family, kidding back and forth was a way of showing affection. I sometimes forget that not all families are built that way."

Something I always find difficult when getting to meet people or becoming part of a group is finding what is acceptable humor. Humor can be tricky and can easily become aggressive and cruel.

In general, I am very quiet and observant with a new group or setting until I think I have some understanding of where the humor boundaries are. I can be so quiet sometimes that people are truly surprised when and if they discover how much good humor is a part of my daily life. I am not sure where the humor comes from given my mother had none and my father very little.

Jerry

Your mother too? My mother was one of two people I met in my life who lacked any sense of humor whatsoever. The other was the Auditor General of a medium-sized country.

Dennis

In any case, with respect to SHAPE I came to understand quickly that Jerry's first point above (taking the best possible interpretation and deferring judgment until further feedback) was going to be vital, especially since the communication is taking place by written word only. So I have learned that if I have a negative or sensitive emotional reaction to something someone says on SHAPE in response to something I said that I should just put it away for a bit and return later (equivalent to "breathing"). At the second reading I can more easily see that either I misread (which happens often) or misinterpreted what was written and that there truly was no reason to get upset.

I can do this with SHAPE because I have immense trust that the SHAPE culture is not deliberately cruel to and critical of people even while it is equally devoted to looking carefully at ideas and dissecting them. This is also such an important aspect of the "review" part of the software industry most of us are in: being able to distinguish the author from the work product and being able to critique the work product and not the author. Certainly my organization, which hires academic high-achievers, still has a lot of problems in this area.

In any case, back to more truly serious matters:

Jerry: "A while back, we had a request to post pictures of Shapers (everyone wanted to see if Dennis really looked like Cary Grant)."

There is a reason (beyond the restraining order) that there are no photos of me available because, for the record, I am all too often mistaken for Cary Grant's clone -- absolutely -- you have my word on it -- two peas in a pod . . . well, except for these very minor, almost minuscule, nit-picking differences: I am head and shoulders shorter, decidedly rounder, much paler, quite a bit balder, and I am pug-nosed, blind as a mole, sans cleft chin, don't have a British accent and have none of the physical and athletic grace Archibald exhibited in the movies. (See, Jerry, you will not be disappointed.)

I think I meet the requirements at least as well as most software products and systems meet their requirements.

"In the land of the witless, would the half-wit be king?"

Jerry

Thanks for that description Dennis. Now if we had to make a rendezvous somewhere like an airport, I'd know to look for someone who looks and talks more or less like me.

From: Danny

Jerry: You see, my jokes are obviously not good enough for me to be a luminary.

Nice try, but in my experience, the luminaries don't have a very good sense of humor, and in fact they have a habit of offending people. Of course, lots of non-luminaries also don't have a good sense of humor.

Jerry

Well, do you think I'm good at offending people, you $%#*&%@#.

From: Donald

Jerry: You see, my jokes are obviously not good enough for me to be a luminary.

I actually laughed out loud at this one. Though I recognize, I think, that this is at once both humor and serious. So I may be guilty of perpetuating the problem. Or perhaps merely the human condition.

Jerry

Human condition, yes; "merely," never.

Donald

Jerry: I think the lesson here is to learn to make the best possible interpretation, not the worst - or even to defer interpretation until you have more feedback.

I would add that when you've lost it, even if you might suspect you've lost it, you won't be able to see where you lost it or how to find it again.

Jerry

Correct. But, then, what are friends for?

Donald

How do other SHAPErs get feedback about their interpretations, other than by posting to the thread?

Jerry: I hope my comments about my attempts at humor are taken seriously, so you can go back and take my attempts at humor humorously.

I can see now the humor in your comments.

I'm starting to worry that I'm killing the thread by making it too much about me.

Jerry

Let's see what it will take to make that into a joke.

I believe this is a good place to introduce the concept of the "cosmic joke," one of Virginia Satir's most important models. A cosmic joke is achieved when you can look back on something you took very seriously and, seeing if from a cosmic distance, realize how silly it was - and laugh.

And, I'd like to quote a little poem of Edie Seashore's:

Some day,
We'll all look back upon this and laugh.
Why not now?

Or, as Oscar Wilde said, "Life is too important to be taken seriously."

From: James B

. . . otherwise he would become one of those vacuous sermonizers (heaven forbid!).

Sermonizer, occasionally, by accident when some discovery overtakes me. Vacuous, never, I hope. There is room here even for my foibles, committed in enthusiasm and good intention.

Jerry

Yes, you're one of the prime contractors on that hell-road paving contract. Both of us.

From: James B

LOL. You're in rare form today. Laughing at yourself, myself helps Shape work.

From: Jay

Jerry: "… once in a while my coyote self takes over and I just have to say something, whether it's encouraging or not."

Your comments--regardless of their origin, whether from your coyote self or not--are invariably helpful. They engage me (and I would think many others besides) and elicit contributions from me.

Question of Jerry: What is the coyote self?

Jerry

Around here, in New Mexico, the coyote is the trickster. In the Tarot deck, the fool, or sometimes the hanged man. In other terms, the jiggler. Nynke, if she's listening, will tell you more.

Jay

Dennis: "The slowness in the unfolding of the conversation over time is a rhythm with which I am …comfortable"

Me too. It typically takes me a while to think things through, write something down, edit it, and send it in. Once in a while, by the time I am ready, it is too late. Jerry has closed out the thread, archived it, and moved on to something else.

Jerry

In our first year, I had complaints that I was closing threads too soon for some, so I upped the general lag to ten days. I make exceptions when I feel the thread has died, and there's something pressing to put up.

From: Bob

How does SHAPE work?

Perhaps we should examine, "How does SHAPE Play?"

The examples in this thread of how jokes can fall flat, but be explained says a lot about how the members trust each other enough to make jokes with SHAPEd charges - aimed at specific people' foibles.

The ability of this forum to mix pleasure with seriousness is important. The jokes very rarely come at the expense of "them" as in "us vs. them". If you examine Jerry's interspersed comments, you see humor targeted with a shaped charge, and "just barely enough structure" to do the job.

Some threads, such as the Pencils of SHAPE thread are purely humor and show the variety of clowning in the group. Humor is quite a window into the personality.

Jerry

And all this time I thought the Pencils thread was the most serious we ever ran. Hmm.

From: Dennis

Jerry: "And all this time I thought the Pencils thread was the most serious we ever ran. Hmm."

At least as serious as so much of software development: a torrential flood of brilliant ideas and clever variations on ideas and nary a single actual physical pencil to show for it.

But as best I recall, to our everlasting credit, at least we never suggested "Eat lead." (Symbol Count 9) as an aphorism.

Jerry

Or "Eat eraser." which I frequently do.

From: Donald

I was reading the "Too Busy To SHAPE" thread in the archives recently. I had the following observations and questions:

- Are there any other threads in the archive about how SHAPE works?

- I realize that every thread, individually and as a whole, says something about how SHAPE works. However, to see these things requires a sort of seeing that I don't feel is very natural or easy for me - a variety of hearing the music. Curse of the INT_?

- SHAPErs are more interested in SHAPEing than talking about SHAPEing.

- SHAPE threads sometimes are not only or mostly about their original questions

PS. I could now cite this thread as an example of the SHAPE cultural value (or at least maybe Jerry's value) of staying present in the active threads.

Jerry

Talking about SHAPEing on Shape is meta-level stuff. Going to the meta-level can be

a. a sound way to stay in the present (as in escaping double binds)

b. a clever way of avoiding the present (as in diverting from the questions as posed)

c. both at once (at least for different people)

From: Donald

Me: PS. I could now cite this thread as an example of the SHAPE cultural value (or at least maybe Jerry's value) of staying present in the active threads.

I am referring to the "Too Busy To SHAPE" thread in the above sentence.

Jerry

Missed that. Could go on a thread on the dangers of pronomial references. Thanks for the clarification.

From: Scott

Regarding SHAPE values...

Dennis: I have never personally met Jerry or any of the contributors (well, except for myself, but I am still in the process of meeting that person).

Jerry: Software engineering is a human activity, an activity that can be improved by studying ourselves and learning to be more fully human.

Jerry's comment seems to me a key value of the SHAPE community, one that distinguishes it from most other software engineering forums and leads directly to the list of words and phrases Dennis used to describe the SHAPE community.

In the introduction to "Writing Down the Bones" by Natalie Goldberg, she relates a comment by her Zen teacher, Katagiri Roshi: "Why do you come to sit meditation? Why don't you make writing your practice? If you go deep enough in writing, it will take you everyplace." Goldberg goes on to say, "This book is about writing. It is also about using writing as your practice, as a way to help you penetrate your life and become sane. What is said here about writing can be applied to running, painting, anything you love and have chosen to work with in your life."

It seems that in some sense, software engineering is our "practice". SHAPE is a place where we can reflect on that practice together as we strive to become more fully human.

Jerry

Thanks for bringing one of my favorite books and favorite authors into this discussion. And the idea of "your practice." That would be my highest hope, that SHAPE would contribute to people's practice. That's what the P in SHAPE stands for.

From: Scott

Jerry (from the Open-Source Writing thread): Some Shapers (not me) have lives outside of Shape, and can drop in and out based on some real-world stuff.

I don't believe the "not me" comment.

Jerry

I didn't mean I don't have a life outside of Shape. I meant that I can't drop out like others can. I have to be hear (pretty much) every day. Not that I mind, but sometimes it presents problems.

Scott

But regarding the rest, my life outside of SHAPE currently includes four teen-agers at home and eight Software Program Manager direct reports at work. One of the teen-agers broke his arm skate-boarding two nights back, so I spent three hours hanging with him in the hospital yesterday evening (there goes the windsurfing vacation this week :-)). Another of the teen-agers just returned from three months on the road (Ghana, Ireland, Spain), so I'm trying to find time on his schedule to reconnect (friends, etc. :-)). Another teen-ager(girl!) was off in the U.S. high school rugby national invitational in Kansas City last week. And then there's those pesky program managers! :-) Oh yeah, my wife...

Jerry

Even so, in my experence, teenagers are easier to deal with (not easy, but easier) than program managers and wives.

Scott

Like a lot of prior posters to this thread, I read most of the threads most of the time. What with thread drift and the general high caliber of the dialog, I almost always learn something new. Like others, whether I contribute to a thread depends both on whether I think I have some insight or experience to offer that has yet to be presented and whether I have the time to participate in a dialog.

Time is always a challenge. I can skim/read SHAPE in the morning at work, but responding and participating in dialogs is usually a late night activity at home for me. I sometimes have experience to share (e.g., sabbaticals, remote development teams), but simply don't have enough time to participate in the discussion. So for me the dropping in and out is more a matter of posting/participating, but I'm usually reading.

I haven't received too many direct emails from SHAPEers, but welcome any that come my way. Got a few good jazz tips from James Ward that way! (Thanks, James!)

From: Fiona

Jerry wrote: I have to be hear (pretty much) every day.

Nice Freudian slip! Or was it deliberate?

Jerry

It was a deliberate Freudian slip. My subconscious knew exactly what it was saying, so I take full credit.

From: Bob

You can generally notice how tired Jerry is when he accidentally swaps the responses between 2 threads ("What Programming Language?" and "Customers" June 25).

Jerry

Fixed now, I hope. Thanks to all who pointed it out. My Shaping errors have short lifespans under such watchful eyes - except my deliberate Freudian slips. That takes that special Canadian eye (magicked by the Northern Lights) to see.

Bob

If you observe his schedule, he's usually either participating in a conference away from home or otherwise on the road under less-than-optimum connectivity conditions. I believe yesterday's snafu happened while Jerry was at the Agile Developers Conference.

Jerry

Indeed, yesterday I gave the conference keynote, and spent the wee hours of the morning discussing various issues before I could come up to my room, toothpick open my eyelids, and post to Shape.

Bob

SHAPE members usually notice and get on with their lives anyway.

On the other hand, Jerry has been known to "deliberately" exchange responses when he felt it was warranted due to subject matter. You can tell because he usually says "I felt this was more appropriate for xxxx."

Jerry

You'll never be able to know everything about the man behind the curtain, but you did a pretty good job this time.

From: Dwayne

I was talking to another SHAPEr yesterday at the Agile Development Conference. We were discussing how much we read SHAPE, what time of the day, what we gained from SHAPE, and other things. I read it every morning, almost every day (19 or 20 days is my guess).

I was trying to find a word to describe my habits when he interjected the word "sustenance."

Wow! what an insight. Reading SHAPE does seem to start my day right. Thanks everyone. Thanks David.

Jerry

That word works for me, too, but I get my sustenance the night before (usually). Sometimes it keeps me awake, but I don't mind.

From: Donald

I'm in the midst of the upheaval of re-locating, which is likely to go on for another 6-8 weeks. So, maybe it's not the midst, exactly. Anyway, being wrenched out of my patterns and habits has had a big impact on how I participate in SHAPE.

This is compounded by the fact that the organization I joined is not a software group. I don't yet feel comfortable using work time to participate in SHAPE.

Jerry

Do what you need to do, Donald. We'll understand.

From: Michael

>Jerry: >Do what you need to do, Donald. We'll understand.

That's one way in which SHAPE works.

Jerry

And that's another. Thanks, Michael, for pointing that out.

From: James B

Lengthy but interesting keynote by Clay Shirky about technology-enabled groups, here:

http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html

From: Bob

Thanks Jim for that Clay Shirky piece. It's interested to see most of SHAPE's design validated analytically.

The analysis of the utility of social software and its limitations would have been useful at last year's AYE conference when Jerry was describing the limiting factors of network-enabled groups.

The anti-scaling and limited open-democracy dynamics run against the grain of initial optimism, but are real human manageability limits. The discussion of the tyranny of "drive-by voter" democracy vs. citizenship with vesting was particularly interesting to me.

That's a keeper for the next wild-eyed "change the world through membership" scheme I meet.

From: Joseph

My rules,

Effective shape writing for me means,

I read three times what I have written before I post it.

I then cut that down twice to bare essentials.

I don't post anymore at midnight.

Thanks, to Jerry for getting me to say it in a lot fewer words.

Jerry

You're welcome.

From: Jesse

Seconding Bob, thank you James B for the Clay Shirky reference from the other day:

> Lengthy but interesting keynote by Clay Shirky about

> technology-enabled groups, here:

> http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html

This is yet another way in which SHAPE works, at least for me. I have a high level of trust in the reading recommendations of the contributors here. In this case, I followed James's link and printed out and read (and enjoyed) the suggested article. In another case, based on a pointer from Michael Bolton earlier this year, I am nearly finished reading all of the articles at Malcolm Gladwell's site (www.gladwell.com), in addition to his book.

Jerry

By now, anyone who follows through on 1/10 of the Shaper recommended readings would be better educated than 99% of the people in the software business.

Of course, they were better educated than 98% before they signed up as Shapers, so we can't take too much credit.

From: Dwayne

Jerry: By now, anyone who follows through on 1/10 of the Shaper recommended readings would be better educated than 99% of the people in the software business.

What do the other 1% read? Point me to it, quick! ;-)

Jerry

The other 1% didn't get their education solely through reading, but through paying attention to their experiences and the experiences of others.

Dwayne

I also appreciate the pointer to the Shirky web site. I printed the article and read it, too. Enjoyable and enlightening.

From: Dennis

Jerry: "I wonder if anyone would care to comment on what kills threads (on the other thread)."

Well, with the "kill" metaphor in place I will take a stab at it. But let me say up front I don't think anyone murders a thread, although there is a Grand Imperial Potentate who decides to close them off and send them to an archive (a kind of graveyard of sorts or is it a limbo or a heaven, a purgatory or a hell?).

How do threads end (the cynical answer is "as lint in the trap of a dryer")? What is the eschatology? "In the beginning was the Word" and in the end the Apocalypse. But threads are not so cosmologically grand a thing as all that. They are, however, similar to conversations, and the art of good conversation requires an end. The notion of an endless conversation is a hellish one indeed. Even the tireless talkers in "My Dinner with Andre" had the good sense to end their conversation when the waiters were closing down the restaurant.

But while a single thread may end, for now, the SHAPE of the garment continues to be woven.

Two works of possible interest from my previous academic life in Medieval Studies that talk of such matters as endings: Frank Kermode's "The Sense of an Ending - Studies in the Theory of Fiction" and Barbara Herrnstein Smith's "Poetic Closure."

And if it is not too much, two short poems and the ending of a third poem:

Silence

My father used to say,
'Superior people never make long visits,
have to be shown Longfellow's grave
or the glass flowers at Harvard.
Self-reliant like the cat --
that takes it prey to privacy,
the mouse's limp tale hanging like a shoelace from its mouth --
they sometimes enjoy solitude,
and can be robbed of speech
by speech which has delighted them.
The deepest feelings always shows itself in silence;
not in silence, but restraint.'
Nor was he insincere in saying, 'Make my house your inn'.
Inns are not residences

-- Marianne Moore

Jerry

Was "tale" intentional? The original had "tail," but I wouldn't put it past Dennis to try to improve on Marianne Moore.

Dennis

Nothing Gold Can Stay

Nature's first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf's a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.

-- Robert Frost

===

. . .

And, in the isolation of the sky,
At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
Ambiguous undulations as they sink
Downward to darkness, on extended wings.

-- Wallace Stevens, ending of "Sunday Morning"

Jerry

One thing that might kill threads is long quotations, no matter how wonderful or germane.

From: Dennis

Jerry: "Was "tale" intentional? The original had "tail," but I wouldn't put it past Dennis to try to improve on Marianne Moore."

I would love so dearly to take credit for being that wickedly clever. Alas, it was only the fallibility of the usual suspects eyes-hands-brain (I'll not hazard a guess as which of the three is the real culprit of this crime) and yet more evidence, as if we needed any, of why spell checkers are never enough.

"This is the way the world ends / Not with a bang but a whimper." T.S. Eliot, "The Hollow Men"

Jerry

And that's the way threads end, with whimpers. I generally wait for ten days of no postings (or no significant postings) to indicate that interest has run out. Of course, I'm the judge of what's "significant."

If you're planning to contribute significantly to a thread and need more time, give me a heads-up and I'll try to keep it open.

If you see a thread is about to reach its limit and have something non-significant to contribute, remember that you may be keeping it alive at the expense of other Shapers.

And what makes threads whimper. See Brian's note, and James's note, below.

From: Brian

What kills threads (besides Jerry):

Someone notices that the topic has been thoroughly explored and sums it up and that's that. People stop contributing because it's all been said, and Jerry notices and needs the space for a new topic . Thanx to Dan Scarborough for this one.

Jerry

And thanks to you for this one. I don''t know, though, that this thread (and some others) can ever be summarized. (Of course, challenges like this tend to keep a thread from whimpering out.)

From: James B

Often, it seems to me that thread traffic dies down when what we know or suspect has been enumerated, and we're left with the questions about a topic that for now are unanswered. One thing that contributes to Shape's signal / noise is that when they've said what they have to offer, people stop talking (eventually.)

Jerry

I do like it when a thread seems to be dying and someone comes up with an unanswered question that shocks us back into life. (Don's letter, below, is a great example.)

From: Donald

The question I'm interested in is, how do threads die well?

I will confess that I want the threads I start to go on for a long time. It feels like appreciation from the SHAPE community. But part of me knows longevity is a brute measure, and a poor one. As a relative newcomer, I'm not sure I have access to any other, though.

I'm tempted to say that threads are ready to die when the stakeholders are satisfied.

Jerry

But satisfaction changes with each new post.

From: Sharon

SHAPE threads are flows. Sometimes the river goes far from one's area of interest and expertise. At other times, the flow is near to one's home.

Witness my contribution to a different thread where the flow and my experience made a sudden convergence. The thread is nearly a month old, and the contribution is my first on that thread.

Patience and attention are keys.

If you stop listening, then nobody will speak to your heart.

Jerry

I think it helps me to listen when I know that there's not going to be a lot of noise to filter out. That's where the quality of our community comes in.

And here the thread came to an end. Would you like to be part of this community?

Sign Me Up Now!