Re: software

On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Clark Robinson <robinsonchicago@gmail.com> wrote:

A further thought: if you have a promising relationship developing with Robert Green and his enterprises, maybe a good plan would be to not push Project PM with him prematurely and just let the widget/programming/launch-of-blogger-network continue to be somewhat dormant while you establish yourself as valuable in his world. Meanwhile, the Project PM "governing network" component could undergo the redefinition that we have talked about, where it is to be perceived less as a administrative arm of the blogger network and more as an online activist collective which is non-partisan, but probably does have a somewhat eclectic core of interests among the members. Need better words to describe this, obviously.

On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Clark Robinson <robinsonchicago@gmail.com> wrote:
I have been thinking a lot about his comments, too. I was really glad to receive them, since after putting some specific descriptions on paper (so to speak) getting reactions from thoughtful people is what I wanted to see happen. However, in answer your question:

One aspect Essig may not fully appreciate is that the plan is to have a free-floating, self-perpetuating, no cost (or close to none) institution, and thus devise programming and memory that resides everywhere they can attach, rather than having a server to maintain with continually increasing capacity and continually increasing bandwidth consumption, and limiting those costs and administration is what a widget-based network accomplishes, right?

If he wants to see an example of problems with servers and bandwidth, that appears to have been happening in the last six weeks or so at True/Slant, where features began to work less and less well, and it behaved as if they had stopped upgrading their infrastructure--surely I am not the only one that noticed the degradation of functionality at T/S after the Forbes announcement.

It is hard to disagree with Todd's statement that widgets on websites are not what will characterize the future of journalism. Nevertheless I am not sure that we want to write off the appealing notion of building an entity that does not require owned hardware and bandwidth contracts.

On the other hand, the quality-inculcation component of the Project PM concept, which is the more important component, is fully severable from
the widget concept, and two alternative non-widget approaches seem to be:

1.) If Rob Green wants to finance it, put up a conventional server based structure and while he's at it, Barrett Brown can be paid a living wage to direct the entity in the direction it should go.

2.) Another would be to partner with Sam Apple and build Project PM onto TFT, using his available infrastructure and programming resources. (In passing, you probably saw that Knefel hit a home run with his first post there.) I think there is potential at TFT to support Project PM's goals, the site is very well designed and he has some very good writers.
-------------------
I have been thinking of writing a new function-description spreadsheet which describes functions-only, and leaves out the "how" material that is in the existing spreadsheet which invades the programmers' domain.
---------------------
It seems to me that the test of Rob Green will be whether he is willing to finance for the short term a probably-unprofitable structure that will achieve the quality goals of Project PM, and gamble that the reputational rewards of being the quality leader will ultimately be something he can build money-making structures on.

Of course, if the money is available, there is no reason why we could not have widgets and website both, as I said above, the quality goals are paramount, the structure is secondary.
--------------------
I looked at the examples of alternatives that Todd suggested. I do not mean to be sarcastic, but I have trouble seeing the future of journalism as being an adjunct to social networking. But I suppose a network is a network, and I confess I had never previously heard of either of the examples he gave, which may be evidence of insularity and failure-to-keep-up on my part. (I still miss AOL; I got laid like crazy using it.) But I think one could build a FlipBoard type structure onto The Faster Times. TFT strikes me as a more intellectual and thus more durable institution than Facebook or Twitter.

Anyhow those are my rambling thoughts on Essig's message which, as I said, I was really glad to receive.

As for the next step, the more input & discussion the better, but in the end a programmer may tell us to go back to the drawing board, or not.

My phone numbers:
My only actual phone: 217 722-8680, a cell phone
The landline phone at my mother's house (where I seem to live most of the time lately, she does not live there any more): 217 817-5114

I'll give you a call in a little while.

On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
What are your thoughts on Essig's objection to the manner in which we're approaching the widget? I'm thinking the best approach would be for me to send out another e-mail list, this time for a discussion regarding that objection, with the intent of getting any other input we can and then coming to a decision this week.

In the meantime, I've been talking more with Robert Green, whom I think may be the best person to help us get what we need in terms of resources to actually hire a programmer in the next couple of weeks, etc. He paid me to do a short comic script on Andrew Breitbart last week (which they'll be shooting tomorrow) and yesterday told me that he'd like to pursue some sort of web series on the subject of the book.

If you want, let's try to talk later today. My phone broke and I don't have your number but you can give me a call on mine if you have time.

--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302