[TOS] Scribd

Tue Jun 29 13:03:11 UTC 2010

hi,

Thanks for the reply Karsten. It was lengthy and thorough. I take issue
with most points but I'm not here to start a flame war - it seems that
we have opened the channels for communication and a good discussion is
evolving which is better than us two hammering away at each other. Many
thanks however for your very open acceptance that the process could have
been better.

So...moving forward - I welcome a review of potential tools for TOS and
we would certainly like to make TOS aware of Booki. If there will be a
formal process perhaps this should be outlined, otherwise I can email
something to the list (and I hope others do too with other suggestions).

adam

On Sat, 2010-06-26 at 00:30 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 08:21:23AM +0200, adam wrote:
> > ok...maybe this is the wrong thing to do but i am going to let a little
> > frustration seep out..,.
> 
> No worries, I can see how these parts seem related or connected in a
> way that is negative for you, and can see how that is frustrating.
> Let me explain what I know historically, from my own experience or
> knowledge.  From that, I draw a different conclusion than you do.
> 
> > i am from FLOSS Manuals and we used to supply the toolset for TOS to
> > create your first book. Somehow we got cut out of the equation and no
> > one talked to us.
> 
> I thought that discussion happened on this list.  We were having
> troubles getting the toolset to work for us while we were writing.
> We had a hard deadline and took a look at the time it was likely to
> take to bring resolution using FLOSS Manuals (FM), compared to
> switching to a 100% known toolchain, and we decided to move our
> content over to MediaWiki and move on.
> 
> Admittedly I like that toolchain (MediaWiki + python-mwlib + DocBook
> XML + Publican), but I didn't push for a switch.  Greg had picked FM,
> I wanted to try FM out anyway, but it didn't work out, so we moved on.
> 
> Now, we could have taken our problems to you all and worked on getting
> them solved.  But the reality is *most* people (80%?) who run in to
> problems with a tool won't work to see those problems solved if they
> have another way to get their main goals accomplished.  Folks will
> work to get the tool fixed, but not all the time in all cases.
> 
> Our mission was "Get this textbook written by N date," it was not a
> goal of "Test and improve FM" or even "Use FM to get this book
> written."  We stayed focused on that mission.  To get that work done,
> at that time, meant taking the work over to teachingopensource.org's
> MediaWiki instance.
> 
> > Thats ok, its your content but I felt it a little weird.
> 
> It sounds like we messed up communication.  *I* remember the
> discussion, but I was in the middle of it.  I looked back through the
> archives, and you can see that on 7 Jan. Greg was writing on FM, and
> on 13 Jan. he was posting links to teachingopensource.org.  I figured
> there was a message to this list in there for that time to explain the
> switch ... but there isn't.  Perhaps the discussion and decision
> happened on IRC, but it's not in these archives:
> 
> http://teachingopensource.org/pipermail/tos/2010-January/000791.html
> http://teachingopensource.org/pipermail/tos/2010-January/000798.html
> 
> So, what happened in there is what I said above.  We ran in to a wall
> using the FM tools, switching to a known-good toolchain was the most
> optimal solution.  We unfortunately didn't convey that information
> back to this group.  That's not good, and I'm sorry it happened.
> 
> > Then I saw Karsten had built some kind of repo tool for your
> > content.
> 
> I'm not sure which you are referring to, unless you mean that we put
> the source for DocBook XML and a few other bits in Subversion?  That's
> the only repository I recall being created, which I reckon is a kind
> of "building".
> 
> I've long admitted to a preference for DocBook, and that was *always*
> the target format for the book after we got the initial collaboration
> done.
> 
> Is that what you were referring to?
> 
> > Also frustrating since we have exactly this tool available
> > (www.booki.cc) and I wrote to Karsten to say this and then no reply.
> 
> I must have misunderstood, the only booki.cc URL and reference I
> recall is this:
> 
> http://teachingopensource.org/pipermail/tos/2010-January/000798.html
> 
> I was going to see about using it as a reference or source for 'The
> Open Source Way', but I haven't read far enough yet to know how it
> applies.
> 
> So I reckon you sent me that link to show me a new publishing tool?  I
> misunderstood and was looking at just the content.  I didn't
> understand I was supposed to review the tool and get back to you about
> it.
> 
> What I'm definitely unclear on right now is this - what is the repo
> tool I provided that is the exactly the same as booki.cc?
> 
> > Now I see there is a discussion about 'acquiring' materials
> 
> The discussion around Scribd was because a new contributor asked about
> how useful that was as a resource.  I didn't understand what was being
> suggested around Scribd, but since I took a look anyway, I threw out
> the ideas that occurred to me.  It was certainly not intended to be a
> dismissal of any other publisher, certainly not the well-respected and
> by comparison 100% free and open content FLOSSManuals.net.
> 
> > for teaching
> > open source participation and again no mention that we have over 49
> > manuals many in multiple languages and still no mention of working with
> > us.
> 
> I see exactly one manual on
> http://www.booki.cc/collaborativefutures/credits/ that might be
> relevant to teaching open source *participation*.  The overwhelming
> majority of the content there (and on other publishing sites servicing
> a similar audience) is on *using* open source.
> 
> (One of the things that *could* be done on teachingopensource.com is to
> maintain a long list of all such books that could be used by a teacher
> in the classroom to show how to use certain tools.  Such a list would
> naturally include what was on FM.)
> 
> What was missing was a 100% free and open textbook for teaching
> participation, so that's what we wrote.
> 
> Other than adding all the books that FM has to some sort of compendium
> of FOSS-related texts, what could we be doing to work together?
> 
> I appreciate that you have a tool that has worked for you and many
> other writers.  We also are using a tool that has worked for many
> other writers, and it worked to get our first release out the door.
> 
> When working on the 0.9 release this summer, I don't intend to switch
> writing platforms unless the rest of the writers mutiny.  We had good
> success with what we used, more of us liked using it than liked using
> FM, and that's where we are.  My goal with 0.9 doesn't include rocking
> the toolchain boat.  That doesn't mean that my mind is closed forever,
> nor am I a dictator.  I'm just saying what I prefer and what I'm
> willing to work on.  If you want to do the heavy lifting that I did
> for the textbook but all on FM, and with the same responsiveness, then
> by all means suggest that.
> 
> > I am finding out slowly I think that you guys are building a little
> > empire and seem to have no interest in collaboration with people in your
> > sector,who have offered tools and help, who have been on this list since
> > day one, and who have material that you explicitly say you need. instead
> > i see whacky discussions about scribd (who incidently scrape all of our
> > manuals)
>  
> I take some issue with your conclusion.  I see some complements
> between projects such as FLOSSManuals and Teaching Open Source, but
> our missions are completely orthogonal.  If you think they are that
> closely related, perhaps that misunderstanding is one of the roots of
> our miscommunication?
> 
> To understand why we are building the Teaching Open Source brand as a
> stand-alone brand and entity, imagine this:
> 
> I'm at an education conference, it's somewhat technical, and the brand
> 'open source' has meaning to people.  The teachers there have maybe
> been using FOSS in the classroom and knows they can maybe save some
> money or something?  One of my goals is to show them how they can use
> open source as a teaching mechanism that is worth many, many times
> more than any potential cost savings on software.
> 
> So I say, "Yeah, that's what we are doing at Teaching Open Source.  It
> is a single community for education practitioners interested in
> teaching open source participation.  As I pointed out before, this is
> different and more powerful than just using open source tools.  Here
> is the website where you can find all of our teaching content ..."
> 
> Then I say either:
> 
> "... FLOSSManuals.net."
> 
> or:
> 
> "... TeachingOpenSource.org."
> 
> First of all, giving one name to work with is going to be easier, no
> matter what.  Second, we're talking about teaching open source, not
> writing free and open content, so a jump to FLOSSManuals.net is
> disruptive and confusing.  Third, FLOSS is an acronym that suffers
> from the usual problem of excluding non-insiders.  In other words,
> every teacer I tell to visit FLOSSManuals.net is likely to not know
> the acronym FLOSS and feel immediately outside of what I'm telling
> them is a welcoming community!  I'd be lucky if people didn't think I
> suddenly got confused and started talking about dental hygiene.
> 
> So given all that ... I'm not sure what to say.  We messed up in
> communication.  We were moving fast and trying to get work done, but
> we broke a fundamental rule of the open source way, "It's okay to be
> disappointed but never okay to be suprised."
> 
> https://www.theopensourceway.org/wiki/Stuff_everyone_knows_and_forgets_anyway#It.27s_okay_to_be_disappointed_but_never_okay_to_be_surprised
> 
> You were surprised and disappointed, and I'm sorry that happened.
> 
> I continue to be open to other publishing platforms and methods.  I'll
> look at the booki.cc platform now that I know what I'm trying to
> research.  If you think there is a case to be made for it in
> comparison to what we are using right now, I encourage you to make
> that case on this mailing list, where it is less likely to be
> forgotten.  Clearly there is diverse interest on this list, and not
> any kind of cabal.  But the fact it looks like a cabal to you, that is
> not good, and is a sign we need to work harder on transparency.
> 
> Thanks - Karsten
> _______________________________________________
> tos mailing list
> tos at teachingopensource.org
> http://teachingopensource.org/mailman/listinfo/tos