Greg, I really feel that if anyone is overreacting here, it is you. I'll try once more, after which I'll stop responding to you because you don't appear to be listening.
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:15:10 -0500 (EST), Greg London <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ben Tilly said: > > I think responses are more along the lines of, "certification > > introduces a lot of problems, and we don't see how you'll > > make a certification become accepted." > > I don't know how it can be done, so it must not be possible. I'm quite sure that this was not the meat of my response. In fact not only do I know that certifications can happen, but I pointed you at a real example of a Perl certification that already *exists*. If you want to know how to do it, just look at the one that is out there! > > I think responses are more along the lines of, "we don't think > > that the business world pays as much attention as you think. > > If you think that it does, then please explain the success, > > past and present, of C, C++, PHP and Perl." > > I don't know how it can be done, so it must not be possible. How does this relate to what I just said? I was saying that, even if you did it, I don't think that it would be nearly as useful as you think it would be. And you think that this is me saying that I don't know how to do it?? > > I think that several have mentioned the cheap (used to be free) > > web-based certification at http://www.brainbench.com/. You > > have not explained why we should expect another one to > > have significantly better uptake than that one. > > I don't know how it can be done, so it must not be possible. Are you hoping that the third time's the charm? Your message has been along the line of, "We just have to try this and great things will happen." I'm pointing out that what you want to see tried has already been tried with a notable lack of the things that you want to see follow, actually following. I have other, more theoretical, reasons to believe that your ideas don't work. They go well beyond your mantra that I just don't know how it can be done, but you don't seem to want to hear them. In any case, if you have a theory for why trying what has failed will suddenly work, I'm open to hearing it. But I refuse to believe just because you want me to really, really badly. > >> I can't do it myself, that's why I'm bringing it to the Perl Monger list. > >> Shut up and advocate then, and stop arguing on the mailing list. > > > > Strange how that works. You don't feel that you can tackle the > > task and so argue on a mailing list, > > I brought it up on the list. I didn't argue until I started > getting socialist lessons, fears of perl splitting in half, > FUD up the wazoo, and about twenty different variations of > I don't know how it can be done, so it must not be possible. I read your rant. And strongly disagree with how you've characterized most of the feedback. In any case, no matter what you started out doing, what you're doing now is arguing. Do you think that that's going to achieve your goal? > > What do you expect to happen? > > I expected to be able to discuss it with some of the people > on the list who favored the ideas without "it kenna be done!" > being shouted from teh engine room. Information to help you predict what will happen in the future. Good things don't happen because someone says, "Wouldn't this be a good idea?" on a mailing list. They happen because someone does X. Indeed virtually all of the energy spent discussing, "Wouldn't it be great if..?" on various mailing lists turns out to be wasted effort. It has been that way as long as I've been watching, and lots of other people have confirmed that that's been their experience as well. > > You then find out that this is a common > > source of discussion, and a lot of people who are in better > > positions to do something about it than you are also dubious > > about it. > > Wow, you grossly understate the reality with "dubious". I've also overstated "better positions to do something about it than you". In any case dubious is a good description of my opinion. I'm not (unlike some) purely opposed to the idea of certifications. I think that they have a role and there are times and places that they are a good idea. I just don't happen to think that Perl advocacy is one of them. > > But you don't seem to be trying to understand why, > > you're just frustrated that we are not acting on it. > > No, see, that exactly is were you are wrong. > I'm not frustrated that you aren't acting on it. > It's like a walkie talkie with a bunch of people on > the same frequency. Every time I say "Anyone out there > want to talk about certification/advocacy/insert idea here?" > a bunch of people hit the push-to-talk button with an air-horn > by their microphone. While the image is amusing, I'm still not getting any feedback from you indicating that you've actually understood any of the criticism. Read it? Sure. Categorized it? Of course. But your categorizations seem to be (at least IMO) miscategorizations and you aren't correcting that. > See, a couple people want to talk about it, but a lot of poeple > insists on squelching the discussion with "it kenne be > done!" Exactly at what point does "It kenna be done" > cease to help the conversation and simply bog it down? Speaking for me only, I've not been saying, "It kenna be done." I've been saying, "If you're going to do better, you need to address these issues." > Yeah, I got you don't have an answer. I got that you've > seen it fail before. I got you dont think its possible. > Thank you for sharing that. Do you understand my specific concerns? > I'm not frustrated that no one's doing anything about, > I'm fed up with all the jerks with the airhorns > going "HOOONNKKK!" every time I try to say something. Well, you can look forward to me not responding any more, unless unexpected opportunities for productive conversation emerge. > > Again, would you predict this to be useful? > > How useful is HOOONNNKKK! Depends on what you wish to accomplish. Personally I like understanding the issues better. I arrived at my current opinions by following previous discussions. If something novel is said, I could change my opinions again. > > If you really wanted you could say, "I'm going to tackle this, I > > need help, anyone who wants to help me please sign up here." > > That would be more likely to go somewhere. > > You grossly misrepresent the sheer volume of posts that went: > "I don't know how it can be done, so it must not be possible." > It never had a chance to go anywhere. ever. It is always possible to ignore naysayers and say, "Anyone who thinks that this could work please show up at ___ and let's try." People who take that approach sometimes accomplish the most amazing things. > > But no. Instead you're spending time talking about how > > important this is without actually doing anything about it. And > > then you're wondering why it is going nowhere. For an > > excellent overview of why this usually won't work I highly > > recommend reading _The Logic of Collective Action_. > > Does it talk about people blowing airhorns over walkie-talkies? > That pretty much sums it up for me. Actually it talks about why groups do and do not successfully mobilize to provide themselves with collective goods that members agree are worthwhile to provide. It also explores how groups who have been failing can sometimes manage to succeed instead. Sure, it is a bit dated (it dates from the 60's), but what it says is widely accepted in economics today, and the original text remains easy to read. > >> The only "shouting down" I've done is to demand use of the > >> channel for a legitimate conversation: perl advocacy. > > > > Some of the ranting that I saw from you didn't exactly look that > > way to me... > > Yeah, when it became clear that this list boiled down to the > lowest common denominator, I started to get pissed off. > When it was clear that a conversation would not be allowed > between the willing participants because some members of > the audience were unwilling to allow it, I got steamed. > When I realized that it wasn't that some poeple not only > did not want to contribute to the idea of advocacy, but > that they actually wanted to actively torpedo any attempts > at it, I ranted. There are a lot of things that you say were clear that are not at all clear to others. Your rant went..a little over the top. > And of course, everyone who was anti-advocacy were only > making positive contributions to the conversation. > No shouting down goign on there. Hey, were just playing > with our airhorns. I won't say that everyone on either side was only making positive contributions. But I think that there was a lot more in the way of positive contribution than you're acknowledging. > HOONNNNKKK!!! I do admit that some of the commentary could be more productive... Cheers, Ben _______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list Boston-pm@mail.pm.org http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
