Ciao Tobias You are one bright spark.
I am very happy to reply because you make explicit what the stakes are. I will do it in bits. Josiah, x On Saturday, 7 January 2017 14:34:11 UTC+1, Tobias Beer wrote: > > Hi Josiah, > > I hope you allow me to respond to your assessments from a more critical, > call it provocative perspective. > > >> 1 - VERY difficult to gain leverage >> > > And what would you want or need leverage for? I like the humble nature of > how this project unfolds. > > 2 - Difficult to form sustainable sub-groups pursuing one thread. >> > > There are plenty reasons for (sub)groups not making "it", whatever "it" > is. Different or unclear, or mostly individual goals and ambitions and > divergent capabilities and perspectives. You see, it may be honorable to > have great ambitions, but there's a point when pushing an agenda really > isn't what people are after, and when that's more disturbing than actually > contributing. > > 3 - VERY difficult to form consensus on anything. >> > > When and where do you need concensus? Make decisions, do what you can and > want and for the rest of it, let go... or find someone who can and wills > it. And let it be manageable, actionable steps, not mere abstract ideas > with no practical leverage. > > >> Some folk do make note of threads and go back to them. But there is NO >> reliable public way to form a KNOWLEDGE NETWORK other than, basically, your >> own powers of reading & memory. >> > > Precisely, so try your best at it, personally. Find your sweet spot, > things you like and know best. However, making everyone follow whatever > your potentially best way for everything is will hardly ever work, unless > that is something that practically works well for most people, processes, > environments, technologies that are simple and inviting enough for people > to join and keep participating. > > While it may not be easy to find everything, the google groups are an easy > environment to join and dive in whereas Github provides more formal, > advanced ways of participation. > > Google groups are not a knowledge base, we got that. You want one, to > cover all of the TiddlyWiki experience? Well, have your try, but try not to > expect too much. It's easy to see all the missing pieces to a puzzle you're > trying to solve. Well, the game is not about finding the missing pieces and > point out just how missing they are, but to solve the puzzle, if you care. > To me, it's really more of a narrative, of words spoken here and there, > tricks applied, methods learned, things achieved. I don't need a TiddlyWiki > for Dummies book to cover every topic I never needed, I'd rather be part of > a community that doesn't treat you like one and helps you meet your ends, > insofar as everyone's capable. > > At this point, TiddlyWiki is not the communication platform around > TiddlyWiki. There are places people talk about it and find useful > application for this little Swiss Army knife of atomic knowledge mgt. See, > if you want some Google for TiddlyWiki, to make it easy to find stuff, and > also some more social chatter to have people talk and find solutions to > problems, answers to questions, like-minded people for projects, and what > not... perhaps TiddlyWiki itself isn't the right place to look for it, and > neither is this group. > > If you find a better environment for your own ambitions, that's fine. But > don't go around reminding people how much they're missing. If they think > it's worth a shot and compelling, then you better make it so. Should you > get there, telling others how much better that is and much worse it is > whatever they do... never works. Let me repeat: never works. Youtube was > successful because people liked to watch videos and it turns out to also > create and share those. Please do invent a TiddlyTube people find useful to > share and create rich content for. But just don't go to the google groups > and say how much better reddit is or go to vimeo to comment on how youtube > is so much more... who knows what. > > My point is that EMERGENT properties are become severely inhibited. And my >> overall impression is that if you are not a keen *bricoleur * >> <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bricoleur>it can be hard work. >> > > I feel no inhibition and I think that is so because I keep my expectations > as well as ambitions adequate. Why waste much energy on abstract, > theoretical ideas one thing perhaps doesn't cater for while igoring all the > brilliant ways you can make good use of it? You see, not sure what > everyone's ambitions are, but if you feel like you can't make it, there are > two options: either your ambitions are way out of your league or the steps > you take to get there are unfit, or too big, have you procrastinate from > one minute to the next, so you can't manage. So, chunk 'em up, do the > little steps and if it turns out you're not getting anywhere it's time to > let go. > > However, if you're serious about some TiddlyWiki marketing, have your try. > Find an ecosystem to work it and people who care to join. Possibly, > overloading this group with a bigger project like that wouldn't be a > meaningful approach. Some two years ago the *TiddlyWikiDocs* group was > created to provide a more focused entry point to topics around > documentation. There was some turnout to it, but it's nobody's fault if > there's nobody left participating in it. And I think it makes sense that > people rather learn the Github workflow to practically contribute, rather > than make all kinds of theoretical considerations that never see the day of > light, practically speaking. > > >> IMO, if this situation were improved questions like Marketing, Mass Apps >> (e.g. e-pubs), Sub-project Threads (e.g. UI issues) etc would likely gain >> a clearer place and likely to gain TRACTION. >> > > I never read an e-pub. So, do I want that? Who knows. If people think > that's what they want and realize TiddlyWiki as a great tool for that, > someone will come along and do it... otherwise, maybe neither "e-pubs" are > all too attractive to people or perhaps TiddlyWiki isn't the right tool to > create one, after all. > > If people build "Apps" around TiddlyWiki, fine. Does TiddlyWiki need that > (and all the added complexity)? Who knows. If you have some clear project > and goals that you are actually able to fulfill, work 'em, other than that, > I find it important not to burden the rest of the world with hopes and > wishes or even expectations that poorly resonate with reality. Not that > those are bad in any way, in themselves, but there's a point when a little > or big personal dream of someone else, constantly regurgitated, creates > more noise than sound or song ...and when I feel like I'd rather focus, on > one, small, specific thing I can do something about, rather than fit all > the knowledge of the world into a little box in my skull, somewhere between > those ears and behind those eyes. Things are messy, things get lost, things > gain and lose relevance, daily... it's the nature of the game. > > I welcome everyone's ambitions and I know quite well, that not everyone > else shares mine, whatever you or I might think they actually, practically > are. > > As it is, the history of THIS thread itself will shortly be lost. >> > > And why wouldn't it be? What is the practical value for it to reside in my > or your or even our collective memory? > > So, to sum things up, to me "LIM" mostly stands for less is more > <https://www.ted.com/talks/graham_hill_less_stuff_more_happiness>: *<=>* and > at this point i have little ambitions to rewire that acronym. > > Best wishes, > > Tobias. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to tiddlywiki@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/ae60f880-61e0-4eed-8b9d-1729b6f45d22%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
