These are logs of the #esp IRC channel on Thursday, 24th May 2007. The subject under discussion was the Espra TAD or Technical Architecture Document, and the uncovering of a few problems with the plan leading to a big discussion and partial resolution. This chat is important because apart from the TAD itself, it's the main codification of the problems and resolutions.
The first half of the logs are effectively a brainstorm of the problems; these were then summarised in the TAD as eight distinct problems and proposed solutions. The second half of the logs are a review, with Tav, of the summaries, debates about their content, and whether the proposed solutions were tenable and which ones should therefore be adopted.
16:29:40 * sbp is quickly getting bored of the TAD
16:35:51 <sbp> you know, I'm not sure about the architecture of this thing
16:35:57 <sbp> http://inamidst.com/stuff/esp/tad
16:36:00 <sbp> that's what I've done so far
16:36:27 <sbp> I can't help thinking that either nobody's really explained how it all interacts, or nobody's considered it. I think I've got the Underpants Gnomes problem
16:36:30 <sbp> 1) Plexnet
16:36:32 <sbp> 2) ???
16:36:34 <sbp> 3) Toman!
16:36:54 <sbp> the pretty diagram with the coloured circles and stuff I largely bullshitted
16:36:58 <sbp> which is not the way to design a system!
16:37:10 <sbp> when I read all the documents... they've mostly got this kind of thing:
16:37:27 <sbp> [[[
16:37:28 <sbp> As most filesystems are rather inefficient at handling directories with several
16:37:28 <sbp> thousands of files within them, a partitioned directory structure is used using
16:37:28 <sbp> the first 5 characters to create nested directories, e.g.::
16:37:28 <sbp> /b
16:37:28 <sbp> /9
16:37:28 <sbp> /4
16:37:28 <sbp> /d
16:37:28 <sbp> /2
16:37:28 <sbp> b94d27b9934d3e08a52e52d7da7dabfac484efe37a5380ee9088f7ace2efcde9
16:37:28 <sbp> This should give us a maximum of just over a million directories to store files
16:37:28 <sbp> in -- which should help constrain the number of files in each directory to a
16:37:28 <sbp> reasonable number even on a pretty busy node.
16:37:29 <sbp> ]]]
16:37:40 <sbp> interesting details, but microscopic footnotes compared to the scale of the system
16:38:09 <sbp> for example, it's not really obvious how services work, what languages they're programmed in, their their interfaces are, whether they're stored in the plex storage blob, what executes them, even what calls them
16:38:37 <sbp> are they accessible to entities? what if the network layer needs to access them? does that even make sense? it's not clear because I get the impression that it's a giant inkblot test
16:38:39 <jeffarch> sounds like disco
16:38:47 <sbp> the heptarchy looks...
16:39:14 * sbp greps the documentation he was given for "disco"
16:39:39 <sbp> okay, that's the Events blob
16:39:43 <sbp> I'm talking about the Sevices blob
16:39:58 <sbp> so if services are disco, and disco is events, then those two blobs are one blob
16:40:09 <sbp> see, that's sort of the point. nobody seems to really know
16:40:29 <sbp> tav specifically said that it's not the components of the design, it's the gestalt of the design that makes it important
16:40:38 <jeffarch> heheh
16:40:55 <WorldDomination> dont care about gestalt, it's all about vision !
16:41:02 * WorldDomination runs for cover
16:41:03 <sbp> but the only information that there is consists of inane (but interesting!) things about the individual *components*; and as far as the gestalt goes, there's only the effect, the Toman Model, to go by
16:41:48 <sbp> and good grief, I've been doing this since 2001 and only on Monday did tav really explain the Toman Model to me... and I still have grave suspicions over it. it sounds like it could be done as a kind of Web 2.0 site something like a super-ebay or a super-craigslist
16:42:03 <sbp> I even wrote down "tomanr.com" on the Toman System napkin, because that's instantly what I thought of
16:42:17 <sbp> and that in a crowded restaurant with me not thinking anywhere near my best
16:42:30 <sbp> now I have hindsight, it seems like a spark of insight more than anything
16:42:57 <sbp> if you're going to build the Toman System as I understand it, you can do it with LAMP and a bit of elbow grease; you don't need the Protoplex insofar as I understand it
16:43:13 <jeffarch> I see things from a "rich tagging" perspective
16:43:36 <sbp> but I don't think that the Toman System is all that interesting... I mean it's nice that it gives a way of distributing goods and services between people, but people are doing that already, and though not massively efficiently they're at least doing it fairly capably
16:43:39 <sbp> rich tagging?
16:44:14 <jeffarch> tagging tags, as tav mentioned it
16:44:27 <sbp> ugh, metatags. tags are useless; metatags are metauseless
16:44:44 <sbp> tags are the most overhyped thing on the web today. I've had this out with tav already... lemme find the link
16:45:12 <jeffarch> to me's it's the way I'd be able to create references between entities
16:45:21 <jeffarch> and would be entities themselves
16:46:01 <sbp> references between entities? references between private databases?
16:46:12 <sbp> why do you need references between private databases, and what does that have to do with tagging?
16:46:47 <sbp> that's another annoying thing, the fuzzy names. entities as far as I know it are either a) those annoying escape mechanisms in SGML/XML, or b) things with a being such as are living
16:47:07 <sbp> yet, and I quote: "Entities are cryptographically-secure private databases that store information created by a single agent, individual, or organisation &c."
16:47:15 <sbp> well if it's a database, call it a database!
16:47:21 <jeffarch> :)
16:47:42 <jeffarch> to me an entity is a dadtabase entry
16:47:42 <sbp> if it's a database with knobs on, as it is, then call it a database with knobs on. or bells and whistles. call it an ESP Database. call it a Plex Database. but don't call it a freaking "entity" for goodness' sake
16:47:51 <sbp> not according to tav; it's the database itself
16:47:57 <sbp> I think that the Units are the entries
16:48:06 <jeffarch> oh, units
16:48:08 <jeffarch> heh
16:48:18 *** __t (n=t@82.111.255.146) has joined #esp
16:48:21 <sbp> "Their backend is basically just a queryable set (the Entity itself) of hashtables (called Units)."
16:48:29 <sbp> so a Unit is a TABLE, in SQL parlance, more or less
16:48:33 <sbp> and the Entity is the database
16:48:45 <sbp> but again, we can't just use those old names that have been around since at least the 70s can we?
16:48:54 <sbp> I can't find the tag debate, incidentally
16:49:46 <steve_i> not wanting to be annoying and butt in but these vague terms such as entity and unit are also really confusing the general public and scaring them off.. tho i understand its early days for us
16:50:03 <sbp> no, you've exactly hit the nail on the head
16:50:05 <steve_i> (us being general public)
16:50:27 <sbp> that's entirely correct. if it hinders the *developers*, just imagine what it'll do to the public!
16:50:29 <steve_i> im really dying to get involved but so far have been struggling... your docs tho have helped alot
16:50:54 <__t> .define logs
16:50:55 <xena> logs: http://www.openideaproject.org/irclogs/browse/esp/latest
16:51:09 <sbp> and it would be easy to call an apple an apple, but for some reason we're not; tav's not. and I can only think that he's wanting to encourage innovation by calling it something different and trying to get people to think without any past connotations
16:51:17 <sbp> but you can't just delve into the future untethered
16:51:53 <jeffarch> Onward, into the Unknown!
16:52:51 <sbp> when tav actually did manage to cobble a system together, the protoplex, it was vaguely interesting but wholly uncompelling. it took us two days to make it work, and when we did none of the architecture was particularly clear
16:53:06 <jeffarch> I've noticed this being a contributer of feedback loops over the years
16:53:10 <steve_i> is that is whats on svn?
16:53:26 <sbp> in some wholly annoying way I think that this is what genius is: it's partial understanding, and that's what tav has. you think big, you think detailed, stuff goes missing, stuff doesn't exist
16:54:04 <cre8radix> watch out! __t is backtracking you guys
16:54:06 <cre8radix> hrhr
16:54:11 <sbp> but it's a genius that isn't at all manifesting itself in any sort of practicable way, and I can't really see any way of salvaging something decent from the material that I've got in front of me today and what I remember from six years of working on the plex
16:54:18 <cre8radix> hey sbp: grrrrreetz
16:54:19 <steve_i> i love the idea , the project , the scope etc, but it seems too much for a few people to do
16:54:23 <jeffarch> that, and "the thing could be built in the time it would take to get the documentation together"
16:54:23 <sbp> hey cre8radix
16:54:38 <cre8radix> steve_i: x-act-lee
16:54:51 <cre8radix> that's why we want people to join in
16:55:13 <sbp> steve_i: well that's another thing! the 24days diagram is a really good example of that. for example, tav wants to create a new programming language that's some mishmash of python and perl or something, only with his own ideas thrown in. okay. that's cool. that's good. I've done that--I wrote a language called Pluvo. it took me a couple of months
16:55:45 <sbp> but that's to get it to the prototype stage. if you look at the big three, Perl, Python, and Ruby, they took about a decade to mature together. if you want to create a merging of those languages, it's going to take even longer!
16:55:47 <steve_i> heh madness
16:55:50 <cre8radix> .define Pluvo
16:55:51 <xena> No definition found for 'Pluvo'
16:56:04 <sbp> and that's one bubble, *one* bubble, of the thirty or so projects in the 24days activity
16:56:13 <sbp> maybe it was 24 bubbles, that'd make sense
16:56:18 <sbp> except it doesn't make sense. it's insane
16:56:38 <sbp> look at perl6: it's taken over five years already, and they have *hundreds* of coders and are being led by Larry Wall of all people
16:56:51 <sbp> 24weeks wouldn't be enough to develop that single technology
16:56:59 <sbp> even if anybody knew how to do it. and nobody does
16:57:25 <sbp> good grief, when you start to turn on the reality faucet it doesn't trickle, does it?
16:57:44 <steve_i> well sounds like its time to start the drive to get people involved.. eg bu updatin the site ;)
16:57:54 <sbp> I mean, I can apply this directly to the heptarchy if you want me to
16:57:57 <steve_i> -u +y
16:58:27 <cre8radix> steve_i: rrrright
16:58:28 <steve_i> well, you cant argue that is sounds like an interesting ride for u guys
16:58:30 <sbp> tav said he'll build storage on top of ZODB for now and POD can come later, but POD's got to come. nobody's going to work with ZODB... and if they do it's just going to be a kind of insane mesh of details with no interfacing to any of the other parts of the technology
16:58:31 <cre8radix> BUT
16:59:21 <cre8radix> it doesn't seem to happen
16:59:37 <cre8radix> for some reason i don't actually know
16:59:48 <sbp> if there is something usable and practical, perhaps even to the level of being world changing here, it would probably lie in the storage level, but it never seems to come to any fruition. even the smidgenous subset idea that AaronSw wanted to make back in 2002 was too much of a system for them both to handle
17:00:03 <sbp> I remember Aaron reading the Chord papers and just thinking hey, that's rather a lot to have to do
17:00:26 <sbp> and we tried to do it in RDF... I'm not sure I could do it in RDF now. look at what the monkeys did to the freaking Freenet project--it's a mess and it's an abysmal mess
17:00:48 <sbp> yet the value of it was clear. the value of Aaron's subsetting was that it should've been merely an improved Freenet, but...
17:01:12 <sbp> look what's happened! Freenet is actually more or less obsolete now anyway because storage on the WWW is so cheap. you have companies like Google and Alexa that can archive the *entire* web
17:01:51 <sbp> so alright, I can store stuff on the web really easily now. I can host GB sized files on bittorrent. has it made things any better? yeah, it has done a little; I'm storing more information on the web than I was back in 2002. I think it's benefitting society as a whole
17:02:16 <sbp> but it's hardly a freaking revolution. and that was the most promising bit of the whole revolution supposedly promised by the plex/plesh system back in 2002
17:02:44 <sbp> now alright, tav did say "no, you've got to have the rest of it!", but if the most promising bit turns out to be a flop, I don't see how some grand conjunctional system is going to correct that situation
17:03:23 <sbp> I wouldn't, in all seriousness, implement any of this the way that the documents say to
17:04:21 <sbp> I've had a fair deal of experience with storing metadata and querying it in systems very, very similar to this given all my work on the Semantic Web. I know what happens when you design a fuzzy system and let people fill in the details with *empty* details, because that's what *happened* to the Semantic Web
17:04:50 <sbp> back in 1998, it was just a glorified version of PICS, and people were coming up with very similar ideas to what we've been doing with the plex all this time. it's spooky
17:04:56 <steve_i> is it just me or did the Semantic web never catch on?
17:05:03 <steve_i> sounded lieka good idea
17:05:13 <sbp> and they released a specification so broken that it took another Working Group years to fix it; and they could only do that by bucking so many of the issues anyway
17:05:42 <sbp> steve_i: it hasn't caught on yet, and it probably won't do. because they're just like we are right here, only further down the line. they concentrated on all the details, all the techology, and didn't consider the system as a whole
17:05:48 <sbp> TechnologyAsMagicBullet
17:05:53 <sbp> you really, really need to direct the thing
17:06:21 <sbp> the Semantic Web should've just been this neat series of tools and languages for data remixing and publishing. it should've made publishing data *easy*, and using it *easy*
17:06:58 <sbp> instead, we get situations like the Atom folks saying "er, no, you can cram RDF" because everybody sees RDF as some kind of boogie monster. mainly because the first and most prominent serialisation of it is in XML
17:07:42 <magitam> hey guys...
17:07:44 <sbp> nobody concentrated on trust and proof as a low-level part of the system. nobody yet is recording provenance data when they get RDF Graphs from the web... there was a system once that you could have crashed and destroyed utterly by putting a single magic triple into the system!
17:07:55 <sbp> that's what happens
17:08:34 * sbp rips the paper proofs he prepared of the plexnet architechture diagrams to shreds
17:08:55 <steve_i> ... there is so much to learn :)
17:08:56 * magitam wonders.. what will we do now??
17:09:06 <sbp> ask tav. he doesn't know
17:09:33 <sbp> steve_i: what has been available for learning hasn't been learned
17:09:51 <magitam> so how much of this system has been designed so far?
17:10:05 <WorldDomination> shit I was so hungry I just ate an entirely deep frozen hamburger
17:10:17 <WorldDomination> but now the beer will taste lousy
17:10:19 <steve_i> heh, some light relief
17:10:34 <sbp> magitam: http://inamidst.com/stuff/esp/tad is the summary of as much as I've been able to discern thus far. much of it is copied from a document that I wrote earlier this year when I roasted tav online for hours for details about what he was designing
17:10:36 <jeffarch> mmm....meatsicle
17:10:50 <WorldDomination> ouch
17:10:54 <sbp> interestingly, I now find that the document that I prepared is included in the stuff that's been regurgitated back to me in order to prepare the TAD
17:11:05 <WorldDomination> sbp: to be honest I thought that a draft exists
17:11:10 <magitam> hehehe
17:11:25 <magitam> sbp: any chance we can stick this up on a wiki someplace?
17:11:37 <magitam> Do we have a wiki style space anywhere for 24weeks.com?
17:11:46 <magitam> If not - can we get something set up??
17:11:56 <sbp> various "drafts" exist of various parts of the system. I have several of them, and I've seen several others of them. none of them, as I say today having looked at them all and tried to synthesise the whole damn lot including even a day's long talk from tav on Monday, make sense
17:12:20 <WorldDomination> so there was no top-down design at all you mean
17:12:33 <sbp> exactly. it's like the whole thing has been markov chained from the murky depths of contemporary technology
17:12:34 <magitam> I'm pretty sure, if we can make them all available, in a wiki style format, we can start to get many eyes looking at it..
17:12:48 <WorldDomination> strange
17:12:49 <magitam> maybe we might be able to somehow turn this mush into something useful..
17:12:58 <WorldDomination> but I thought that you guys wanted it just like that
17:13:03 <magitam> I know I for one, haven't been able to find all the docs yet..
17:13:05 <sbp> when you look at the words you understand them; when you look at the sentences they almost make sense; but as for the paragraphs and, for the brave, the whole book, there's nothing really to discern at all
17:13:10 <WorldDomination> I mean: "decentralized" - even in design
17:13:36 <WorldDomination> I was enthusiast about the whole thing in 2004
17:13:38 <sbp> I've been thinking for six years that it could be turned into something useful. but this is the most pessimistic state that I've ever been in regarding the project
17:13:38 <steve_i> magitam: also get links to all the rest of the stuff available in one place, eg links posted in here, radio rss etc
17:13:44 <WorldDomination> but
17:13:55 <WorldDomination> when I tried to document what actually isthere and what is planned
17:14:11 <sbp> I mean, this is another thing anyway: whatever's online is currently secreted away behind HTTP authentication, as if it's some kind of trade secret or something
17:14:17 <magitam> ok... so maybe we need to start with smaller pieces
17:14:22 <sbp> this thing needs as many eyes on it as possible to get anything of value from it
17:14:31 <WorldDomination> I met a) a lot of question marks b) resistance but c) still, a lot of promising and interesting ideas. I decided by the end of the same year not to invest any more efforts in it
17:14:35 <magitam> that's been my thinking from the start...
17:14:58 <WorldDomination> and to just look at how it grows from the outside
17:15:02 <magitam> I want to be able to get all the pieces of what's there, and start making something coherent out of it all...
17:15:09 <magitam> at least at the level of ideas, and community..
17:15:13 <sbp> and it's been hidden in ludicrous tree structures... some of it isn't even on the web at all! I mean, zool's diagrams that I mentioned earlier, where she seems to have been basically going through the same process that I'm going through now of concretely (well, FSVO given that it's zool!) understand it...
17:15:22 <WorldDomination> but
17:15:24 <sbp> they're not on the web at all, as far as anyone knows
17:15:40 <WorldDomination> I don't really believe that there is noone with a big picture
17:15:44 <WorldDomination> I can't imagine that
17:16:01 <sbp> WorldDomination: where do you think all of this data comes from?
17:16:12 <sbp> it comes from tav. almost nothing that we're working on here is anyone else's idea!
17:16:14 <WorldDomination> well - tell me
17:16:29 <sbp> if anyone has the big picture, he does. which is cool... but...
17:16:36 <sbp> trying to get it from him is a bleeding bugger sometimes :-)
17:16:43 <WorldDomination> maybe he likes it that way - maybe it's good for the project
17:16:51 <WorldDomination> I don't know
17:16:51 * sbp notches another year, another iteration
17:16:56 <sbp> good for the project!
17:17:06 <WorldDomination> but this is not the way I work so I got out of it
17:17:06 <sbp> how many tech projects have you been working on for eight years?
17:17:14 <sbp> which is, as far as I know, how long tav's been working on it
17:17:18 <WorldDomination> dave called me "military"
17:17:33 <WorldDomination> and I guess I am, somehow, in this respect
17:17:38 <WorldDomination> and that this is different
17:17:40 <sbp> he says that if he doesn't succeed this year, he's going to give up and go into architecture instead! now, I don't think he should do that... I'm rather worried that he will, actually
17:17:44 <WorldDomination> a different way to do things, and to manage them
17:18:05 <sbp> well, there's different and there's provably unworkable
17:18:05 <steve_i> he is an architect?
17:18:13 <sbp> steve_i: he will be, if this carries on
17:18:20 <steve_i> my bro is one and is almost as mad about social change etc
17:18:24 <steve_i> that explains it :)
17:18:30 <sbp> yes, it's not that huge a leap
17:18:43 <cre8radix> no leap is huge
17:18:45 <cre8radix> and
17:18:46 <WorldDomination> steve_i I am too
17:18:49 <steve_i> in fact his boss is also mad on this project too suposidly
17:18:49 <cre8radix> we can do it
17:18:57 <WorldDomination> unfortunately, or fortunately, as you put it
17:19:00 <cre8radix> yet there's this espian desease
17:19:12 * sbp listens to cre8radix
17:19:17 <steve_i> sounds good to me, they have alot of passion!
17:19:19 <cre8radix> being all sceptical and so
17:19:37 <cre8radix> doubt is a blocker sometimes
17:19:55 <sbp> sceptical? who's sceptical? who would have worked with tav for six years (me) or more (deltab, jeffarch?), if we were sceptical? hardly
17:20:16 <cre8radix> a lot of associated espians are
17:20:39 <steve_i> sceptical of the idea or of the way things are being done?
17:20:53 <cre8radix> from my experiences in networking
17:21:17 <cre8radix> it's very hard to keep the passion up for very abstract issues
17:21:53 <cre8radix> and if it's not "your baby" that you put in a lot of effort
17:22:09 <cre8radix> it usually starts tendingin towards zero
17:22:20 <cre8radix> tending
17:22:22 <cre8radix> sorry
17:22:45 <cre8radix> sceptical about the chances of really achieving the goal
17:23:09 <magitam> I think right now, there's a lot of potential...
17:23:16 <cre8radix> it can be done
17:23:27 <cre8radix> it must come into existance
17:23:39 <magitam> that really hasn't been focussed enough to be done in the past...
17:23:48 <WorldDomination> well I think so too - and I m not the right person to have to say something about it, since I dont know esp internals
17:24:37 <magitam> I think even in just the last week, that I've been at Rich Mix, and going through some of this, it's really clear how there's a focus, and it needs some real clarity
17:24:42 <jeffarch> there's always ben alot of potential. this iteration has a little more hype than previous ones, but it still doesn't have a "critical mass" sifficient for " spiral-defying" inertia
17:24:54 <magitam> especially around what needs to be done, who's going to do it, and what the next steps are...
17:25:02 <sbp> jeffarch: I don't think it's as good as 2004, actually
17:25:13 <sbp> the WTF was really hopping, and there were a lot more intelligent people around then
17:25:27 <cre8radix> maybe some folks are getting tired?
17:25:31 <sbp> until I met __t, in fact, I was thinking that this was the worst iteration ever
17:25:38 <sbp> but I like __t; he's good people
17:25:38 <magitam> Well, if it helps, I've spent the last two years, working on something that paralells the espian vision...
17:25:48 <sbp> still, I'm very worried from having tried to assemble the TAD
17:26:04 <magitam> and I think now, the world might be ready for this...
17:26:12 <jeffarch> sbp: seemed like more coding going on then
17:26:36 <magitam> and that there's been enough other stuff happening in the whole online/networking arena, to make it really clear how much something like espra is needed...
17:26:37 <cre8radix> when i joined the espians
17:27:11 <magitam> sbp: can I help you in assembling the TAD?
17:27:16 <cre8radix> i got the feeling that there is a lot of talk about how it's NOT gonna work
17:27:17 <jeffarch> I'm just watching the show till I see a platform I can plop my use-case onto
17:27:22 <cre8radix> just an impression
17:27:30 <cre8radix> i wasn't there in 2004
17:27:39 <cre8radix> and i'm not a coder anyway
17:27:58 <jeffarch> cre8radix: me neither
17:28:14 <magitam> cre8radix: I think it's just people's frustrations in not being able to engage with it all right now...
17:28:36 <cre8radix> yet i know many people who are waiting for the ability to work in an augmented surrounding
17:28:46 <magitam> it seems a little all over the place at times, and whilst there's lots of people that want to get stuck in - it's hard to know where to begin, or where to start looking...
17:29:25 <cre8radix> sbp: __t's great!
17:29:34 <sbp> magitam: sure. who are you? I can send you the materials that tav sent me if you like
17:29:47 <cre8radix> and so are most of the espians i've met so far
17:29:47 <sbp> I should probably just put them online, but I guess I ought to ask tav about that
17:29:48 <steve_i> magitam: u said it
17:29:54 <sbp> because that would be going a bit far
17:29:54 <cre8radix> WE CAN DO IT!!!
17:30:01 <sbp> er, though, OTOH I think they're all marked as Public Domain
17:30:05 <magitam> sbp: I'm Farhan...
17:30:09 <cre8radix> tav just popped back in
17:30:10 <sbp> but anyway, I don't want to piss tav off; it's a matter of equity
17:30:24 <magitam> a random fella that walked in off the street a few days ago...
17:30:29 <sbp> cre8radix: ask him if I can put the tarball and document he sent me on the public web, would you please?
17:30:29 <magitam> though it feels like weeks!
17:30:43 <sbp> if you've got a minute, and he's available
17:30:57 <magitam> and I've been in the office as much as I can, trying to make sense of what's happening, and if there's some place to join in!
17:31:31 <cre8radix> i asked him
17:31:47 *** tav (n=tav@82.111.255.146) has joined #esp
17:31:48 *** ChanServ gives voice to tav
17:31:49 <cre8radix> he's gonna join the irc now
17:31:55 <cre8radix> hey tav
17:32:24 * magitam thinks I've found a spot for meself in all this~
17:32:30 <tav> yo
17:32:32 <tav> there i thought isolation
17:32:34 * tav reads logs
17:35:40 <tav> w00p @ tad doc so far -- nice one sbp!
17:35:50 * tav continues reading logs
17:37:38 * sbp waves to tav; quite a lot of backlogs to read, I'm afraid, and fairly important I think
17:37:49 <sbp> cre8radix: thanks for pinging him for me!
17:38:39 <cre8radix> sbp: np
17:43:33 <tav> wow, yeah, there's a lot here
17:44:23 <tav> --
17:44:23 <tav> <sbp> now alright, tav did say "no, you've got to have the rest of it!", but if the most promising bit turns out to be a flop, I don't see how some grand conjunctional system is going to correct that situation
17:44:24 <tav> --
17:45:00 <tav> hmz, the "freenet" bit wasn't the most promising bit
17:45:01 <tav> the promising aspect is *all* of it
17:45:48 <tav> sbp: what do you mean by:
17:45:49 <tav> --
17:45:49 <tav> let people fill in the details with *empty* details
17:45:49 <tav> -
17:45:49 <tav> --
17:45:54 <tav> ?
17:46:43 <sbp> tav: I mean that you've sketched a broad outline and you want people to innovate to make the system a reality, to allow people their flexibility, but my experience of when you let people do that is that they concentrate on the details of how the system works and start eventually arguing about unimportant things such as whether spaces should be allowed in filenames and all the rest of it
17:47:23 <sbp> and eventually people forget about the grand design of the system. well, in any case, to follow up on the whole "promising bit" aspect, I'm worried that either there is no real grand design of the system here, or that, if there is, then I just don't see it very clearly
17:48:02 <sbp> I mean, I get the whole goal of enabling communcation and sharing and making better cultures and all that stuff. that's the kind of thing that all of us big dreamers want to achieve, and since it's a universal thing we should sorta be convering on it you'd think...
17:48:37 <sbp> but of course most people just sit at home and eat their dinners and go out clubbing in the evening and don't really think about how to change the world since they're having enough trouble as it is cleaning up their own environment. or they just don't care
17:49:02 <sbp> I've met people who really, truly seem to believe that the only proper sane condition for a human being is to be entirely selfish! there are some scary-assed people out there. but anyway; ignore 'em
17:49:09 <sbp> I get what you're aiming at
17:49:21 <WorldDomination> hm
17:49:27 <sbp> I just don't get how the Plexnet, as a technical system, *works* especially under the umbrella aim of achieving that goal
17:50:01 <sbp> I think that you're harking to the ideas of partial understanding and prototypicality. you've kinda got the vague idea that something can be *done* in this area, and you've identified some areas on which progress can be made
17:50:11 <sbp> and, really, I think you've done an excellent job there
17:50:22 <sbp> it's the Heptarchy: you've found seven bits of technology which suck at the moment
17:50:47 <sbp> as I said in the TAD at the moment, it seems that the idea of the Plexnet is that we take these areas, and we make them a) not suck as much, and b) all work together in interesting and neat new ways
17:51:31 <sbp> now the *idea* of that is awesome. but as to how to *achieve* that, there seems to be no data at all! I mean, absolutely nothing. when I came up with that pretty diagram that I did for the TAD, with all the goofy hands and stuff, I bullshitted the whole thing. that's not a diagram, that's a joke
17:51:59 <tav> sbp: right. that happened with freenet. which is part of the reason why none of this shit is public -- because it didn't seem productive arguing with randoms about whitespaces until something tangible was there
17:52:13 <sbp> when I actually thought about how I'd do it and whether all these technologies could be sort of modified in such a way as to make something interesting, I realised that there was no information that I've ever been given on the entire espian fairground ride that goes towards that. and that was hella scary, man!
17:52:51 <sbp> well yeah, but at the same time one of the reasons you were getting me to make the TAD is so that people could do *exactly* that. you want random programmers to come along and take a part of the system and talk to one another and build the system for you
17:53:05 <sbp> and you want me to coördinate that, right? I'm the CTO, am I not?
17:53:10 <tav> yeah, the tad is great except for that diagram -- that diagram is no reflection of "reality"
17:53:17 <sbp> yes, I just said that
17:53:41 <sbp> but it was an attempt to eke out some reality from what I've been given
17:54:18 <magitam> I've got to shoot off...
17:54:21 <sbp> so, as I say, underlining my point: either I haven't been given the right information, or I'm oblivious to it, or it doesn't exist! I don't know which of those possibilities that it is. obviously I'm hoping the first, dreading the second, and... the third would mean the end of espra so best not go there
17:54:27 <magitam> but I'm going to swing by Rich Mix later...
17:54:39 * magitam want's to know how this turns out...
17:54:43 <tav> yes, but by you being the cto instead of it being a random bunch of developers together, the aim is to *not* let it slip into random arguments about whitespace
17:54:59 <tav> hmz
17:55:17 *** magitam (n=pachamam@82-44-71-162.cable.ubr03.newm.blueyonder.co.uk) has left #esp
17:55:50 <sbp> fair enough. but I still don't know how it works, so really, even for me, all I've got to go on is all the details. I can look at your query mechanism and suck in air and say "well, that's not how we do it in RDF circles! lolnesses", but that's really ignoring the point
17:55:55 <tav> so, i'm kind of puzzled, from the aspects on the TAD you seem to have the general overview (at least of the sections you've covered)
17:56:05 <sbp> which is that you have to start building the system, and you have to start at the beginning. and I can't find the bleeding beginning!
17:56:24 <tav> and from there, is there such a leap as to implementation detail ?
17:56:31 <sbp> yes, a huge leap!
17:56:53 <sbp> you've defined like three whole cogs, and maybe there's a little bit of tinfoil somewhere
17:56:58 <tav> hmz, the query mechanism in rdf is the same?
17:56:58 <sbp> and you're asking me to make a Cray
17:57:11 <sbp> no, it's not the same. "that's not how we do it"
17:57:18 <tav> ah
17:57:55 <sbp> I kinda need to think this through more so that I can ask you some really specific things
17:57:59 <tav> well, ask me specific questions ?
17:58:01 <tav> right
17:58:50 <sbp> the summary of my position at the moment is: I tried to assemble the TAD, but I don't think that the technology of the Plexnet is feasible from the current documents, in that it's underspecified and an unworkable system in the parts that actually are specified
17:59:15 <tav> give an example of the unworkable bits
17:59:33 *** steve_i is now known as steve_i_logger
17:59:33 <sbp> so, I think I'm behooven to give you a) an explanation and defence of that position, and how I came about it (rather than mad ravings in the logs), and b) some ideas about how to progress on from there
18:00:08 <sbp> let me write up an Anti-TAD. I'll probably email it to you or something. how's that?
18:00:11 <tav> that would be useful, yes =)
18:00:16 <sbp> awesome
18:00:23 <tav> public http is fine
18:00:27 <sbp> I'm off to eat fodds; that was exhausting
18:00:30 <sbp> m'kay, noted
18:00:37 <sbp> be well. run, dance, frolic!
18:00:42 <tav> as long as you rescind it once TAD prevails (soon) ;p
18:01:07 <sbp> history proceeds by revolutions. this might be one of 'em, for espra
18:01:10 <sbp> anyway, peace out!
18:01:13 <tav> tad vs. anti-tad -- showdown @ 2000 BST
18:01:31 <sbp> yeah, I'll be back in about 30-60
18:01:31 <tav> that a good time?
18:01:35 <sbp> c'ya!
18:01:37 <tav> cool, catch you soon
18:01:43 <tav> i'll belay the isolation
18:01:59 <tav> and thanks for this!
19:01:52 * sbp adds the list of problems to the TAD itself
19:06:27 <cre8radix> sbp: :P
19:06:29 <cre8radix> bigup!
19:07:05 <jeffarch> ++
19:13:08 <sbp> not much suggested in the way of fixes yet, though
19:13:11 <sbp> currently thinking about that
19:14:33 <jeffarch> didja iterate thru the whole thing once first?
19:24:34 <sbp> jeffarch: it's all derived from the logs here, so yeah actually
19:24:49 <sbp> what happened is I already had reservations even before meeting tav on Monday
19:24:53 <jeffarch> I still see @@ ;p
19:24:56 <sbp> then I got to work on the TAD
19:25:14 <sbp> @@? yes, that's from the bit I already did; nothing to do with the problems
19:25:34 <sbp> the @@ are there because the system isn't designed, so there's not much point in filling them in with scant data and boring details that don't matter
19:25:39 <sbp> I'll remove them
19:25:46 <jeffarch> heheheh
19:26:05 <jeffarch> good enuf excuse
19:26:17 <sbp> have you read the bottom section?
19:26:26 <sbp> from "Problems and the Anti-TAD" onwards
19:26:30 * jeffarch reloads
19:26:35 <sbp> I've updated it with positive ideas about directions forward
19:26:43 <sbp> so there's a list of eight problems
19:26:45 <sbp> some discussion
19:26:51 <sbp> and then a list of eight possible solutions
19:27:13 <sbp> whoops, the solutions list should be an ol too
19:28:01 * jeffarch reads solutions
19:30:09 <sbp> added a single paragraph at the bottom about enabling the culture, too
19:30:25 * jeffarch will whip out and update his use case
19:30:40 <jeffarch> as soon as I figure out where I put it ;p
19:30:42 <sbp> you have one? great!
19:30:50 <sbp> note that we need several, and could do with dozens really
19:30:58 <jeffarch> agreed
19:31:00 <sbp> where did you get yours from?
19:31:07 <jeffarch> openideaproject
19:31:20 <jeffarch> so it's from my pre- #esp days
19:31:20 <sbp> who created it, when, and under what circumstances? I'm intrigued!
19:31:24 <sbp> aha!
19:31:25 <jeffarch> me
19:31:52 <jeffarch> one fragment is http://www.openideaproject.org/Projects/OIPDev/ItemUsageTrackingCreatesModeration
19:34:31 * sbp adds a paragraph about the order in which to tackle the problems
19:36:00 <sbp> jeffarch: can you explain that fragment a little more? it feels like I almost get it
19:37:16 <sbp> phenny: tell tav http://inamidst.com/stuff/esp/tad#problems
19:37:18 <phenny> sbp: I'll pass that on when tav is around.
19:38:48 <jeffarch> sbp: knowing how pieces of info are used, using "rich metadata" in a multi-dimensional, crit.org-esque way
19:39:57 <jeffarch> defining supporting material, specific/apropos uses
19:41:38 * sbp adds a summary paragraph
19:41:47 <jeffarch> http://www.openideaproject.org/Projects/OIPDev/TTKExamples
19:41:58 <sbp> jeffarch: why do we want to know how pieces of info are being used?
19:42:10 * sbp reads TTKE
19:43:04 <sbp> wow, I didn't follow that at all. the only bit that I got was the big commute and irregular schedule
19:43:28 <jeffarch> it's a usecase ;p
19:43:31 <sbp> but then it sorta went into la-la land to me. what problems does the big commute and irregular schedule cause, and how is it proposed that they be fixed?
19:43:53 <sbp> yeah, but I have to take your word for it because it uses a lot of terminology alien to me... :-)
19:43:57 <jeffarch> TTK is a "thinking tool kit"
19:44:03 <sbp> what does it do?
19:44:48 <sbp> helps one to think, I presume? :-)
19:46:49 <sbp> when I see "big commute", the use case that springs to my mind is "therefore I have a huge environmental footprint because I'm having to go so far to do my work; hence I need some way of reducing the journey, making the journey unnecessary, or making its environmental footprint smaller". that, to me, is a use case
19:47:40 <sbp> or for "irregular schedule", "therefore my family don't ever know what time to plan to do things; hence I need some way of either adding some measure of predictability to my schedule, or making it so that we have more flexible tasks that can be done without a fixed schedule, or some other like solution"
19:49:08 <sbp> what I see on TTKExamples is that the scenerio is kinda introduced, but then it goes into talking about a toolkit that I don't understand the use of, and then specific technical things about that toolkit
19:49:24 <sbp> what I'm missing is what problem the toolkit is solving with respect to the scenario
19:50:58 <sbp> yo?
20:00:05 <sbp> 2000 BST!
20:01:27 <sbp> if this is a showdown, it's sorta like how the marshall gets there too early and he walks around and the echoes clatter off the walls of the abandoned brothels, and you see the occasional person peeking from behind their curtains only to dive back inside. tumbleweeds roll by. a crack! it's only a piece of loose timber...
20:02:28 <jeffarch> sry...had to go fetch the neighbor's dog, which got loose
20:02:45 <sbp> no probs. welcome back!
20:03:11 <jeffarch> yeah, well, it seems tav and I have a lot in common ;p
20:03:56 <sbp> tav's neighbour's dog often gets loose too?
20:04:05 <jeffarch> heh
20:04:50 <jeffarch> in a nutshell, I want to provide a framework where Edward DeBono's thinking tools can be used in collaborative, on-line environments.
20:05:35 <sbp> m'kay. De Bono is interesting
20:05:41 <jeffarch> this as a bootstrap environment to develop tools more suitable, and provind a much larger scope
20:05:44 <sbp> but I was rather hoping to get to grips with the use case you linked me to first
20:05:54 <sbp> I'm already so addled with overviews...
20:06:24 <jeffarch> still looking for a certain doc, am just finding scraps so far
20:06:29 <sbp> ahh, okay
20:08:04 <jeffarch> the plan was to seed data from http://www.openideaproject.org/Projects/TTKSamples/CommutingExampleProjectStory onto separate wiki pages
20:12:09 <sbp> ah there we go, this is good
20:12:16 <jeffarch> thought you'd like that
20:12:26 <sbp> yeah. lots and lots more things than I thought of, but along the same lines!
20:12:41 <sbp> "Jeff: here's where I get lost -- Lucas"
20:12:50 <sbp> I like that though; the implementation bit
20:12:51 <jeffarch> heh...noticed that too
20:13:41 <sbp> so yeah, that's a great use case. did you get to the next stage, of how your particular thingy (the TTK) solves it? I guess that might be in the implementation bit, but I'm not familiar with TTK
20:14:01 <sbp> specifically, I guess it might be the bit that Lucas didn't follow :-)
20:14:01 <jeffarch> I _could_ hack a fix set of tools db-style, but lost interest when tryinng to figure out how to create DTDs on-the-fly and be able to share/change/create/destroy/group them
20:14:23 <sbp> hmm?
20:14:26 <jeffarch> basically, we want to store info about the arrows
20:14:43 <jeffarch> metadata-rich arrows ;p
20:14:57 <jeffarch> so an arrow is "jsut another record"
20:15:21 <sbp> I see one example about what sort of metadata they'd have: when the solutions were thought up
20:15:38 <sbp> so it seems that the arrow is really a metaphor for the potential solution?
20:16:07 <sbp> what other kind of metadata would you store? rating for how good each of the solutions are overall, based on whatever metric?
20:16:24 <jeffarch> the arrows show relationships, colored-arrows help give layers to diff types of relationships, but ya soon run out of colors
20:16:32 <sbp> heh
20:16:39 <sbp> what sort of relationships?
20:16:49 <jeffarch> one sec...I got a doc with that
20:17:19 <sbp> also, I can see why this is cool: it's helping people to understand their solution making processes more and to choose the correct solution. but I don't see that being worked towards, presumably because the documentation is incomplete
20:17:25 <sbp> so it's interesting because it's a sort of meta use case
20:17:35 <jeffarch> exactly
20:17:45 <sbp> it's like your system is a way of working on use cases
20:17:54 <sbp> so any use case on anything is, for you, a use case!
20:17:58 <sbp> which is... sorta handy. heh
20:18:04 <jeffarch> yuppers!
20:18:15 <sbp> I like that
20:18:17 <sbp> MetaUseCase
20:19:06 <sbp> see now already I can tell people what your system does, even though I don't know a *single* thing about its implementation (well, unless the concept of arrows counts)
20:20:02 <sbp> I can say "it's a way to help you generate solutions to problems, any problem, and annotate them and rank them and ultimately choose the right one whilst recording the process so that you can better (faster and more accurately) choose the correct solution to problems in future"
20:20:24 <sbp> all from a scrappy, unfinished use case and a few lines of instruction on irc
20:20:35 <jeffarch> LOL
20:20:40 <jeffarch> (still re-looking)
20:20:44 <sbp> tav: I hope you're paying attention! :-)
20:20:51 <jeffarch> deen so long since I looked thru this stuff
20:21:01 <jeffarch> been, even
20:22:23 <sbp> I note that the concrete, the scenario of commuting woes, is what begat the abstract idea that I got of your system; not the reverse. it seems like we've been trying to do the reverse for the plexnet
20:22:55 <jeffarch> http://www.openideaproject.org/Projects/OIPDev/TTKAPI
20:23:05 <sbp> yeah, seen that already
20:23:09 * sbp follows links liberally
20:23:20 <jeffarch> that's got the sorts of relationships
20:23:42 * sbp looks at it again with his new contextual information...
20:24:24 <sbp> hmm, I don't fully grok it
20:24:38 <sbp> but I kinda get the impression that Time is important, Place, and Medium
20:24:51 <jeffarch> being able to see things change over time
20:25:02 <sbp> I don't know why they're important, etc.; it's not justified, and especially not justified against the use case, which is what's really essential
20:25:08 <sbp> ah, Dynamicity too. okay
20:25:15 <jeffarch> corrections in source documents changing other documents/opinions
20:25:31 <sbp> documents... moving too far away from the use case here for me
20:25:41 <sbp> don't forget, I've only known about this for ten minutes :-)
20:25:44 <jeffarch> price of fuel changes
20:25:52 <sbp> okay, gotcha
20:26:06 <jeffarch> I'll try and stick to my own use case :p
20:26:16 <sbp> so you want to be able to know where you're getting your information from so that you can understand why you made your choice, and whether your choice needs to change in future, etc.
20:26:23 <sbp> it's basically recording the provenance data
20:26:54 <sbp> I might have made an unreasonable estimate based on the initial price, for example, but I don't know where the problem is unless I record the paper trail... right
20:27:16 <sbp> "documents", abstract, didn't do a thing for me
20:27:18 <jeffarch> if a bunch of folks give me links to the "rhodes car", as an alternate form of transportation, and others give othersimilar alternatives, the shear # of choices weigh themselves out, to some extent
20:27:27 <sbp> "price of fuel changes" gave me a welling of ideas instantly...
20:27:41 <sbp> .wik Rhodes car
20:28:04 <sbp> weigh themselves out? how do you mean?
20:28:08 * sbp prods phenny
20:28:10 <jeffarch> a 4-wheeled, 2-passenger peddle bike
20:28:32 <sbp> you mean the more sources you have, the easier it is to come to conclusions and not be swayed by false inputs?
20:28:45 <jeffarch> x "votes" (bad concept, because there's dimensionality to a "vote") for choice foo
20:28:52 <phenny> "Dan Rhodes is a British author who was born in 1972." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Rhodes
20:29:01 <sbp> heh
20:29:17 <sbp> jeffarch: in terms of the use case, por favor?
20:29:42 <jeffarch> so within the scope of "alternative forms of transport" of the use cacse, I can get an idea of popular alternatives
20:29:42 <sbp> (I do actually follow, but it took me longer to parse)
20:29:47 * tav waves
20:29:50 <phenny> tav: 18:37Z <sbp> tell tav http://inamidst.com/stuff/esp/tad#problems
20:29:52 <sbp> tav! hello
20:29:57 <jeffarch> heya tav
20:30:21 <sbp> I'm gonna get a drink whilst you read the augmented TAD
20:30:28 <tav> hey, sorry for the delay
20:30:38 <sbp> the logs directly above are pretty good too; jeffarch and us proving one of the points in the TAD augmentations
20:30:40 <sbp> no probs
20:33:35 <jeffarch> where he hell did I put those mock-ups?
20:34:24 * sbp returns with drink
20:37:32 * tav finishes reading the anti-tad and reads the logs
20:38:40 <sbp> the logs have a wonderful example on the big point, point 8
20:39:45 <sbp> . o O { for every TAD, there is an equal and opposite TAD }
20:39:59 <sbp> I think that the Anti-TAD, in other words, is really an integral part of the TAD itself
20:40:05 <jeffarch> http://www.openideaproject.org/oipttk/oip_view_rev3a
20:40:06 <sbp> I'm glad I didn't start a completely different document!
20:40:31 <sbp> jeffarch: woah. what's that?
20:40:51 <jeffarch> my mock-up ;)
20:41:26 <jeffarch> wow...just clicked on one of the selects, and ff crashed :/
20:42:19 <sbp> hehe, d'oh
20:43:21 <tav> hmz
20:43:31 <jeffarch> could be my 133t html s|<i||z, too
20:43:41 <sbp> tav: you gave me a job to do, and I'm bloody well doing it :-)
20:43:55 <tav> hey, i'm not complaining =)
20:43:57 <sbp> hehe
20:44:16 <tav> all very good points -- but, some aren't (imho) so valid ;p
20:44:31 <sbp> okay, cool. feel free to start whereever you want
20:44:49 <tav> in order seems good
20:45:11 <sbp> okay. order of prioratisation might be good
20:45:18 <sbp> rather than the order in which I thought of them
20:45:39 <sbp> so, the social problem, the mass design problem, and then all the other miscellaneous problems (some of which are still quite big)
20:45:39 <tav> @naming: yes, names are confusing, but so are preconceptions.
20:46:04 <sbp> (knew I shouldn't've put naming first in the list...)
20:46:07 <tav> hmz
20:46:51 <tav> i agree with the prioritisation you gave, but easier to deal with the individual points and thus hopefully tackle the whole...
20:47:03 <sbp> okay. no problem
20:47:13 <sbp> there might be some value to it anyway, given that it was the order of thought
20:47:23 <sbp> okay, so yeah, I get the preconceptions point
20:47:34 * jeffarch goes afk for food
20:47:38 <sbp> I discussed that in the logs a bit; I pointed out that you're probably using different names in order to get people to think outside the box
20:47:58 <sbp> but I think that that in itself is a problem (see #5)
20:48:06 <tav> not sure if you've seen lately, but have been working on eliminating as much of "tavlingua" as possible -- espian, toman, kalati, espra, riva, shaila, plexnet, pecu <-- (think) those are the only main remaining made-up names
20:48:18 <sbp> essentially, I think that the disadvantages of nobody knowing what the heck you're on about is the biggest thing
20:48:22 <sbp> yeah, I noticed that
20:48:32 <sbp> but that doesn't include even the example that I gave in the TAD
20:48:34 <sbp> which is Entities/Units
20:48:47 <sbp> I mean, you could call them Databaseoids, for example
20:49:03 <tav> databaseoids is just geeky
20:49:06 <sbp> crap example, but you get the point: it's derivative of the original, so people know where you're coming from, but it's different, so people know to think outside the box
20:49:27 <sbp> yeah, you sorta have to look past the geekiness of the specific example to the underlying point...
20:49:34 <tav> entities aren't just about being a unit store -- it's also about having a persistent identity
20:49:57 <sbp> if we were actually going to fix the names, we'd have lots of people discussing it, presumably, and some kind of voting system, and blah blah. or someone just goes "hey, what about X?" and everyone else goes "yeah. okay. let's have a beer"
20:50:12 <sbp> but Entities are a different blob from Identity in the Heptarchy
20:50:17 <sbp> I mean it's all *so* *confusing*
20:50:32 <tav> i think the confusing part is the existing documentation
20:50:38 <sbp> you're not going to get innovation when nobody understands the system because they're always grappling with the names
20:50:55 <sbp> there really isn't much existing documentation, so it can't be a problem... unless the lack of it is the problem!
20:51:09 <sbp> sorry, carry on. what did you mean?
20:52:03 <sbp> (and this is perhaps the most minor of the points. I'd be willing to skip it or even concede it for the sake of getting to the bigger issues. on the other hand, it is sort of endemic; it's indicative of the sort of little problems that make up the whole)
20:52:12 <tav> well, there aren't *that* many names in the plexnet and entities are a relatively well understood term in everything from use-case modeling to ...
20:52:19 <sbp> simply not taking a developer friendly approach, I guess is the metaproblem
20:52:22 <sbp> or a metaproblem
20:52:25 <tav> e.g. dropped "metatypes" in favour of "schema"
20:52:34 <sbp> yeah, Schema is good. I actually got Schema
20:52:45 <sbp> didn't for one second quibble that
20:53:01 <sbp> which is sorta the point. if you can pick Schema, why not pick Database or something similar for Entity?
20:53:13 <tav> because it's *not* a database...
20:53:14 <sbp> you're not even consistent in using unclear names
20:53:45 <sbp> what is it then? I thought we agreed when doing the Rosetta talk that it was a database; a set of hashtables, anyway, which is a lot closer to the existing notion of "database" than the non-existent notion of "entity"
20:54:09 <sbp> and the Rosetta talk was in on_kalati.txt, which is one of the documents that you gave me to prepare the TAD, I note; so I figured that it'd been accepted as canon
20:55:09 <tav> much of the problem derives from that i didn't come at all this from a computer science background or even wanting to know anything about technology, so made up concepts which don't quite fit sweet with existing ones
20:55:23 <sbp> (we've spent nearly ten minutes on this issue already. are we really going to spend more than eighty minutes on the whole list of problems? otherwise, we're not being proportionally accurate here)
20:55:56 <sbp> so you won't mind if we change them for the benefit of all the people that have to implement and understand it then, given that they'll very likely be from computer science backgrounds?
20:56:08 <tav> okay, anyways, i take that names aren't necessarily the best ones -- but entity -> database was a bad example
20:56:20 <sbp> note also that I'm not from a taught computer science background; I came into compsci because I taught myself. and yet I still grok basic terms like "database" and "schema" :-)
20:56:23 <tav> the metatype -> schema was a good one
20:56:39 <sbp> okay. I still think we can do better than entity, though, even if not database. and I do say that in the TAD
20:56:41 <tav> anyways, moving on...
20:56:44 <sbp> rightio!
20:57:20 <sbp> 2) There's too much to do./Focus on only the essentials.
20:57:37 <sbp> (those are the bold sections of the problem statement and the possible solution)
20:58:08 <tav> @too-much-to-do: yes -- otherwise i'd have just holed myself up and done it ;p
20:58:12 <sbp> heh
20:58:25 <sbp> there were three subpoints I had to this one
20:58:37 <tav> but, one could feasibly create a rough sketch in a few days, which is "good enough" to start with... as you point out
20:58:49 <tav> and from there, build up bit by bit
20:58:56 <tav> and, yes, the journey is always fascinating!
20:59:02 <sbp> * Do we choose to do part-at-a-time and take years, or whole-system with the worry of just completely missing doing the whole thing? Essentially the point above that is that we need more programmers. Much more.
20:59:14 <sbp> right...
20:59:30 <sbp> hmm. I don't think we can build a rough sketch in a few days, actually
20:59:47 <tav> so, on this point -- part of the reason for my isolation -- is why i'm holing up till wednesday...
20:59:53 <sbp> even if we knew what we were building, I mean, which we don't. because there are no coders
20:59:55 <tav> i believe i can
20:59:58 <sbp> ooh
21:00:11 <sbp> you tried before with protoplex, I remember
21:00:22 <sbp> how long did protoplex take, and why do you think you can do better this time?
21:00:27 <sbp> not that I care particularly, if you deliver! :-)
21:00:55 <sbp> protoplex pleased me, because it existed. it displeased me because it took two days to install, and didn't do a whole lot... :-)
21:01:16 <tav> dunno why this time will be better -- delusional self-belief ;p
21:01:26 <sbp> hehe. well, excelsior. I think it's a good idea to try
21:01:57 <sbp> I hope we have a good Plan B, though, too. might as well do...
21:02:00 <tav> and hoping that once a *working* and *useful* rough sketch is there, then we can attract more coders
21:03:02 * tav waits for sbp to finish the ellipsis
21:03:13 <sbp> we might as well do so, full stop. sorry
21:03:19 <tav> ah
21:03:27 <sbp> can Plan B on that be that we have a nice open collaborative organisation? :-)
21:03:44 <sbp> with a central website, a clean wiki, all sorts of stuff for encouraging development
21:03:58 <sbp> completely obviating the need for backchannels and HTTP Authentication
21:04:02 <tav> esp has always intended to be so -- only that my "pre-requisites" have never been met
21:04:29 <sbp> well I think we'll fail if we don't. and, I mean, if your plan of the neoprotoplex fails too
21:04:30 <tav> which kind of brings to point 3
21:04:53 <sbp> 3) Too many details are hashed out already./Don't hash out the details before the general system.
21:05:09 <tav> none of this comes from abstract wankery about technical solutions
21:05:25 <sbp> okay, but at the very least I wish you hadn't shown us
21:05:37 <sbp> because as an implementor, I don't care. since, like, if details are done then I don't need to know about them
21:06:09 <sbp> whereas if you're showing me details in order to understand a system, they'd better be very testcasey and usecasey oriented, or they'd better not exist at all in favour of some actual documentation about the overall system
21:06:12 <tav> it comes from understanding derived from explicit attempts and problems solved to cater for a wide-range of use cases
21:06:14 <sbp> which is #8, of course
21:06:21 <sbp> (saving the best till last!)
21:06:40 <sbp> okay, but why did you release them?
21:06:47 <sbp> and why are you using them in lieu of system documentation?
21:06:55 <tav> them == the docs ?
21:07:02 <tav> the detail ?
21:07:07 <sbp> no, the little bits of detail about filesystem implementation and stuff
21:07:08 <sbp> yeah
21:07:33 <sbp> I mean, if there's enough of them to actually make a working system, that'd be okay! :-)
21:07:49 <sbp> when there's just a few scrappy bits here and there, they just make the problem detailed in the TAD
21:07:52 <tav> well, in case i get run over by a bus, i was hoping that by sharing certain key insights which are often "overlooked" i was hoping that it'd be useful for people and save some time
21:08:19 <sbp> "The details are being designed before the larger level choices."; or at the very least, none of the rest of the developers can tell what the larger level choices are
21:08:30 <tav> i can go into detail about nearly every aspect of "the system"
21:08:38 <sbp> ah, okay. I didn't find them all that useful divorced of their context actually, but I can give you that
21:08:57 <sbp> but what about the accusation of using them in lieu of documentation?
21:09:19 <tav> as you point out, i haven't done any documentation ;p
21:09:37 <sbp> so you had no other choice? heh
21:09:46 <sbp> well you could've done the documentation *instead*... :-)
21:10:08 <tav> these are all just various brain dumps
21:10:21 <tav> anyways, #4?
21:10:27 <sbp> okay. can we make sure that they're divorced from project documentation in future?
21:10:31 <sbp> okay, #4...
21:10:33 <tav> sure
21:10:52 <sbp> 4) It's not clear how the Plexnet drives the Toman system./Describe how the Plexnet drives the Toman system.
21:10:54 <sbp> cool
21:11:08 <sbp> (#3 was easy, then!)
21:11:34 <sbp> (RESOLVED: tav still does the brain dumps because they have inherent value; but recognises that they are to be divorced from documentation and not used in lieu of it)
21:12:08 <sbp> I think we almost resolved 1, and with 2 we had the thing about you doing underground coding
21:12:15 <tav> @#3: *my* only attempt at documentation is the latest on_kalati.txt -- did that have implementation detail?
21:12:18 <sbp> so fairly good progress so far
21:12:28 <sbp> yeah, it did
21:13:06 <tav> k, well, let's do as the resolution states henceforth =)
21:13:16 <sbp> m'kay
21:13:46 <sbp> to 4! nearly half way through already, and about just over half resolved on those too
21:13:56 <sbp> the Plexnet vs. the Toman system
21:14:18 <tav> think #2 & #7 (RESOLVED: we shall do things openly and iteratively -- starting with an initial sketch from ma underground-ness)
21:14:27 <sbp> I entirely and utterly concede the "not using a name for the Toman System/Espian Ecology" point I made in our meeting, by the way. we absolutely need to refer to it by name
21:14:37 <tav> hehe
21:14:38 <tav> yay!
21:14:53 <tav> i think cre8radix was going to *BLEEP* it out of one of our conversations
21:15:00 <sbp> bwahaha
21:15:03 <tav> for radio:24 to see if it could work
21:15:16 <sbp> damn, shouldn't've conceded so early
21:15:36 <tav> so, can we consider #7 resolved too?
21:15:41 <sbp> anyway, what think you on't? really the problem just state... hang on, looking
21:16:05 <sbp> oh, shit, there are only 7 solutions but 8 problems. hang on, lemme fix that first
21:16:31 <sbp> ah, I missed the solution for 5. adding a placeholder
21:16:50 <tav> cool
21:17:57 <sbp> okay, refresh
21:18:16 <tav> k
21:18:18 <sbp> and 2/7... yeah, that sounds okay. I'd really like more openness
21:18:27 <sbp> and I do think it's go a great way to solving both those problems, yes
21:18:38 <tav> i've wanted something called the 'xnet' to do that for years...
21:18:39 <sbp> though I'd also like a central site, all information available to be on the web, and so on
21:18:44 <sbp> heh
21:18:46 <sbp> :-)
21:19:40 * tav looks for day0 chat logs
21:19:43 <sbp> so #2, #3, and #7 are resolved
21:19:50 <sbp> nooOOoo. no distractions! :-)
21:19:55 <sbp> I believe you already! :-)
21:20:05 <sbp> er, unless you're looking for Plexnet vs. Toman stuff
21:20:33 <tav> --
21:20:53 <tav> [4:21] <tav`> but as of 3 hours from now, esp becomes open!
21:20:54 <tav> [4:21] <AaronSw?> Woohoo!!
21:20:54 <tav> [4:21] <look> reaallly.
21:20:54 <tav> [4:21] <look> interesting
21:20:54 <tav> [4:22] <look> xnet or whatever is operating?
21:20:54 <tav> [
21:20:55 <tav> --
21:21:15 <sbp> ah. I really did believe you! :-)
21:21:16 <tav> soz, was already looking
21:21:20 <sbp> np
21:21:23 <sbp> history is awesome
21:21:27 <tav> okay, that brings me to #4
21:21:32 <sbp> Plexnet vs. Toman
21:21:43 <tav> plexnet *exists* because of toman
21:21:57 <sbp> yeah, but I don't see how
21:22:08 <sbp> this is actually linked very strongly to #5
21:22:17 <sbp> I don't see that the Plexnet is necessary for the Toman Model
21:22:38 <tav> in attempting to create the toman ecology, during the first wave, we used a bunch of different technologies: e.g. jabber, freenet, web, (semantic web), &c.
21:23:17 <tav> and i completely admit that toman is feasible using a mixture of existing technologies, and, yes, even as a "web 2.0" site
21:23:43 <tav> hell, it's feasible (albeit extreme overhead of paperwork) in a non-internet era
21:24:10 <tav> but, plexnet simply makes it easier
21:24:12 <sbp> do you think it would take longer to implement a prototoman with your protoplex or with Web 2.0? taking into account the time to build the protoplex, I mean, and ignoring the benefit that we'd then have a protoplex to do other things with
21:24:44 <sbp> well, I guess if you think you can make a protoplex in a few days, I already know the answer
21:24:49 <tav> it's not about the time to implementation that's the key factor
21:24:51 <sbp> so we're pretty much hinged on that
21:24:52 <sbp> oh?
21:25:07 <tav> nope, it's about social factors
21:25:11 <sbp> splain
21:25:44 <tav> creating a yet-another-web2.0-site is nothing great
21:25:57 <tav> it would be an "interesting" site that some people might use
21:26:19 <sbp> but weren't you saying that the toman model is great?
21:26:25 <tav> the psychology of people interacting with it would be the same
21:26:29 <sbp> if the web2.0 site implements the t... ah
21:26:44 <tav> the model is great, but doesn't mean that millions would adapt it instantly
21:26:45 <sbp> man, I really don't know about that at all. it seems very shaky to me
21:27:06 <sbp> I mean, about the model being great and about the mass adoption being better
21:27:18 <sbp> it seems to me like the sort of thing you need to tweak, for a start
21:27:22 <tav> hmz ?
21:27:28 <sbp> and a low-tech, i.e. web2.0, website would be better for that...
21:27:42 <sbp> I dunno. I guess I'm just not very taken in by the idea of the Toman Model at all
21:27:51 <sbp> see #5. #4 really depends on #5
21:28:05 <tav> familiar with microsoft's embrace and extend strategy?
21:28:13 <sbp> #4 is that I don't get why the Protoplex is essential for Toman; and #5 explains: because I don't think the Toman is all that good!
21:28:16 <sbp> nope
21:28:27 <tav> stop putting # at the front of lines, it hides it from the logs...
21:28:57 * tav looks @ #5
21:29:09 <sbp> oh. heh
21:29:14 <sbp> <sbp> #4 is that I don't get why the Protoplex is essential for Toman; and #5 explains: because I don't think the Toman is all that good!
21:29:23 <sbp> what do you do if you want to paste shell code? :-)
21:29:27 <tav> yes, all of the aspects of toman exist in some form or another
21:29:51 <sbp> yeah, I can see how putting them together in one place would increase their value
21:29:57 <sbp> I just don't see that it'd be all that much
21:30:07 <tav> all of the aspects of the plexnet already exist
21:30:20 <sbp> yeah, I can see how putting them together in one place would increase their value too
21:30:23 <sbp> I just don't see that it'd be all that much either
21:30:29 <tav> in fact, one could claim that all of the aspects of *any* system existed previously
21:30:37 <tav> everything just builds on each other
21:30:50 <tav> newton's standing on the shoulders of giants and all that blah
21:31:21 <sbp> yeah. but if you're going to design the next part of the system, you have to consider whether the effort you put in is not just going to be more than rewarded, but if it's going to be the *best* use of that effort, i.e. the maximal reward
21:31:33 <tav> you don't see how toman provides a much better socio-economic model than any currently existing? ;p
21:31:37 <sbp> I'm not even sure if working towards toman qualifies for the first part, let alone the second
21:31:44 <sbp> no. it's the "much" bit that gets me
21:32:04 <tav> hmz
21:32:21 <tav> okay, i can answer that, but think it's distinct from the tad?
21:32:46 <sbp> hmm, I'm not sure how important it is, no. I think it might come up again in #8, though, which is perhaps the juiciest issue
21:32:55 <tav> come back to it after the others?
21:32:56 <sbp> so we could defer it for now
21:32:58 <sbp> yah
21:33:03 <tav> k
21:33:21 <sbp> 6) People don't innovate, they concentrate on details./Don't rely on people to innovate.
21:33:50 <tav> so, ignoring that part, answering #4 -- it's about maximising network flow and not giving opportunities for threat models
21:33:52 <sbp> we discussed this a little bit in the logs way above, when I first brought it up
21:34:12 <sbp> okay. that still doesn't convince me though!
21:34:25 <sbp> let's defer, lest we bog
21:34:30 <tav> k
21:34:50 *** tricknik_ (n=dk@d45be844.pdsl.dns-net.de) has joined #esp
21:34:58 <sbp> oh 6, you answered way back in the logs that you appointed me partly to make sure that people didn't have detail-arguments rather than doing real work
21:35:07 <sbp> so I partly put a response to that in the TAD under 6: "Even if you appoint someone to quash it, it can take a lot of work; and TimBL hasn't succeeded, for example, in his role of spearheading the Semantic Web."
21:36:05 <sbp> so I basically think there's a danger in letting people innovate. outsourcing innovation is not a good idea; people won't do it... not yet, anyway
21:36:16 <tav> well, this is where the toman model is (hopefully) fairly effective
21:36:17 <sbp> I get this vague notion that in espia, they will do... :-)
21:36:25 <sbp> yeah, but we don't have it yet
21:36:27 <sbp> we're building it!
21:36:33 <sbp> gotta bootstrap
21:36:55 <tav> and where as primus of esp, the trust certs flowing from yours truly, is (again, hopefully) fairly effectively
21:37:47 <sbp> well I think you're giving them out too freely now, in effect
21:37:48 * tricknik_ wonders what "primus of esp" means.
21:38:02 <sbp> don't leave it up to people to innovate. people *suck* at innovating
21:38:12 <sbp> we're all listening to your ideas, and centering around wanting to further them
21:38:20 <sbp> at least humour us and don't stop halfway. bloody tease
21:39:03 <tav> with the pecus driving people towards "creating" instead of "squabbling"
21:39:03 <tav> the cultural dna has to be right
21:39:03 <tav> and with the likes of many we have in esp, i think we have good dna -- just need organisation and clarity, which will hopefully come with the xnet
21:39:03 <tav> hmz, how so?
21:39:03 * tricknik_ wonders what "your ideas" means.
21:39:05 <tav> tricknik: simply that for the trust map defining "core espian", i am the seed
21:39:30 <tav> sbp: yeah, explain
21:39:30 <tav> (and also any other points)
21:39:30 <tav> grabbing a cigarette break
21:39:51 <tricknik_> tav, that is dangerous, and not likely useful idea, there are always many seeds.
21:40:23 * tricknik_ will stay of "interal" espian matters though.
21:40:52 <sbp> tav: what I mean is that we're working on the Plexnet, and that, for better or worse, you have as far as I know designed single-handedly every important aspect of it over a period of several years and leave it thus far incomplete
21:41:25 <sbp> you have several people interested in your ideas and have accumulated them on your process of creation over those years; and yet since so much of the actual system is missing, nobody can at the moment step in and fill those gaps
21:42:05 <sbp> and if you step back and ask people to do so, they will likely just fill it with junk and your work will be wasted. at the very best, we will implement something entirely different. even I can see several interesting directions I could take the Plexnet
21:42:43 <sbp> but they're not your direction, and having watched esp as a kind of social experiment for so many years, I would be rather sad to see it come to no particularly interesting technical conclusion even if my social time here has been rather enjoyable
21:43:30 * tricknik_ thinks maybe the social time is the seed
21:44:03 <tricknik_> ..and perhaps the plant is not technical
21:44:44 <sbp> could very well be so. but on the other hand, that makes me shirk from it a bit because the sociality has mainly been interesting from a very independent point of view
21:45:29 <sbp> there's been rather a lot of studentry level politics played out in it over time. I guess it's a phase that everybody has to go through, and it's interesting to observe it; I'm not sure anyone could do that permanently as a part of the environment without going mad and becoming a libertarian or something though
21:45:46 <sbp> I, certainly, can think of better things to do with my time :-)
21:45:46 <tricknik_> lol
21:46:24 <tricknik_> I have to admit the espian thing is most interesting to me socialy
21:46:51 <tricknik_> if it produces something technicaly interesting, that would be great.
21:47:22 <sbp> yeah, that's pretty much how I approach it
21:47:34 <sbp> but I do worry that without the technical drive, *poof*. no society
21:47:39 <sbp> and it seems most in danger now
21:47:45 <sbp> which is a bummer
21:47:58 <tricknik_> I understand and support the idea of experiments in colaboration.
21:48:27 <sbp> one of the reasons I'm raising all these issues is that because in six odd years of doing this sort of thing with tav, this is probably the worst it's ever been socially. that's why I'm so bloody annoyed that so many things are hidden behind HTTP Authentication and so on
21:48:27 <tricknik_> and those sorts of experiemnets tend to produce artistic/social dividends, not actual software.
21:48:53 <sbp> I'm not sure that this is an experiment in collaboration. more of a thing to *engender* experiments in collaboration, I guess
21:49:09 <tricknik_> I know T, Nadine, Bruder, etc, I have only met Tav briefly during 24h
21:49:19 <sbp> maybe it'll turn towards being a bit experimental itself, because of that goal, but...
21:49:20 <tricknik_> (and in this irc group of course)
21:49:37 <sbp> yeah. and, like, for example __t is a really nice guy but he's very rarely online
21:49:53 <sbp> it's such a shame. a waste of Communicative Opportunity™!
21:50:02 <sbp> I miss people like evangineer, too
21:50:13 <sbp> feels like a lot of people have gone by the wayside from the old 2004 days
21:50:15 <tricknik_> what happened to evangineer?
21:50:24 <sbp> I dunno. I mean, he's technically meant to still be around...
21:50:25 <tricknik_> he was here yesterday?
21:50:34 <sbp> he's listed on the homepage and he does pop by in here sometimes...
21:50:43 <sbp> but I don't know what the story is. he's not around a tenth as much as he used to be
21:50:52 <sbp> and he was one of the best dudes in here. I really loved having him around
21:50:55 <tricknik_> as I said, I am pretty far away from espia.
21:51:02 <sbp> earth?
21:51:32 <tricknik_> but I 100% think grabbing a space, filling it with creative people and brainstorming on what could be is a cool and usefull thing to do
21:51:46 <tricknik_> ..even if no actual software is produced
21:51:53 <sbp> yeah, agreed
21:52:04 <jeffarch> having effective brainstorming tools, using tech or not, is my priority
21:52:06 * sbp is missing the creative people and the brainstorming... :-)
21:52:36 <tricknik_> yeah, I guess you kindof have to be there, but that's the way it is.
21:52:39 <jeffarch> those tools should be capable of creating better tools
21:52:39 <sbp> like jeffarch here. one of the very few Old Skool geezers
21:53:00 <jeffarch> 2nd wave geezer
21:53:02 <sbp> and you yourself, tricknik_, actually. it's been a pleasure to talk to you on all the scant occasions I've had to do that so far
21:53:03 <sbp> hehe
21:53:15 <tricknik_> likewise, sbp
21:53:18 <sbp> ta
21:53:34 <tricknik_> and if tav didn't lure 3 of my friends to london, I would be in this group less.
21:53:40 <sbp> jeffarch: like nanotechnology! bots creating smaller bots
21:53:48 <tricknik_> so there you have the social effect in action.
21:53:50 <sbp> heh
21:54:17 <jeffarch> sbp: another usecase cold be http://www.openideaproject.org/Projects/OIPeople/CommunityInaBox
21:55:01 <jeffarch> sounds like a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_machine
21:55:58 <sbp> hmm, that is kinda interesting
21:56:08 <sbp> though I don't really understand the domain of deployment
21:56:20 <sbp> it seems sorta mixed across online participation and IRL participation
21:56:31 <sbp> which is actually really a bugger. it's causing huge problems, that divide
21:56:45 <sbp> when people come together IRL, they clique and start to ignore the online environments
21:57:01 <sbp> and as a person who can't get to many IRL gatherings for medical reasons, that really freaking pisses me off
21:57:13 <sbp> so I tend to defend online communities strongly and rubbish IRL ones :-)
21:57:22 <jeffarch> heh
21:57:26 <sbp> such as Rich Mix, who're ignoring the online component, I feel
21:57:35 <sbp> and who seem to be doing less than the online gatherings have in the past
21:58:03 <tricknik_> sbp, that is a good point which they should address.
21:58:12 <jeffarch> well, it _is_ easy on my dialup connection ;p
21:58:53 <tav> man, this dog was trying to fuck me
21:59:01 <sbp> woof
21:59:58 <jeffarch> tav: what animal are you in chinese astrology
22:00:06 <tav> tricknik_: absolutely! many seeds make up the valley of imagination and possibilities
22:00:06 <sbp> he's a Dog
22:00:10 <tav> but, there's too much discord -- a temporary measure to *create* and not squabble over who has the bigger dick
22:00:21 <tav> jeffarch: heh, yeah, a dog
22:00:25 <__t> sbp: poooo, i started reading logs serval hours ago and now i am up-to-date
22:00:29 <jeffarch> LOL
22:00:33 <sbp> __t: wow. heh!
22:00:53 <sbp> now, if you were around from the beginning, you wouldn't've had to... :-)
22:01:21 <__t> sbp: i like the introduction of TAD
22:01:27 <sbp> how about the end bit?
22:02:01 <tav> sbp: check out http://planet.24weeks.com for example -- open! =)
22:02:02 <sbp> I'm really pleased with the style of it; and I like the style of the diagram too. those freaking hands... awesome stuff. (codepoint courtesy of Kevin P. Reid!)
22:02:21 <sbp> ah, nice
22:02:36 <tav> evangineer is around here nearly all the time
22:02:58 <sbp> tell him to get online. heh
22:03:16 <tav> no, 24 weeks is not about brainstorming -- enough people doing that already -- but about implementing and creating!
22:03:44 <__t> sbp: i spend 2 hours today in a meeting with rich mix; another 3 hour by fixing the internet; 1 hour by doing a redesign of 24weeks website with nadine; another hour by setting up rst2html ontop of kalti on my machine to update the actual version of http://24weeks.com
22:03:44 <sbp> and yet, to get back to point 6, that's kinda what you're making people do
22:04:05 <sbp> __t: are the meeting minutes going to be published? was there a shailar?
22:04:12 <sbp> bummer about the internet breakage! lost time...
22:04:24 <tav> agreed about the lack of physical-virtual bridge though; so far it's either been dominated by virtual or physical but never both -- again, hope is that xnet will solve that
22:04:42 * sbp doesn't see a new 24weeks.com... hmm
22:05:17 <__t> sbp: just updated
22:05:34 * sbp forces refresh... nope?
22:05:47 <tav> sbp: quite a lot of the meetings have been recorded
22:05:56 <sbp> tav: are they online?
22:05:59 <tav> radio:24 publishes a sort of summary daily
22:06:37 * sbp is missing radio:24 for all days after Day 3
22:07:01 <tav> bruder has done them all excluding today's
22:07:16 <tav> dunno if he's published them yet
22:07:22 <tricknik_> Tav, any implementing and creating that happens would be great to see. What I'm saying is that the interaction and collaborative experimentation is _already_ somthing.
22:07:28 <tav> __t: can you update the first line which says we are on day 2? it's day 6 now...
22:07:38 <sbp> 403 Forbidden: http://audioblog.c-base.net/wp-content/uploads/
22:07:53 <jeffarch> tricknik: it sure is a trip ;p
22:07:55 <tav> tricknik_: sure and agreed, but if it were just that, i'd be rather shattered
22:08:14 <tricknik_> tav, software is hard
22:08:25 <__t> meeting protocoll is within gobby.24weeks.com
22:08:26 <__t> sbp: which link?
22:08:26 * jeffarch sings ./" what a long strange trip it's been ./"
22:08:29 <tricknik_> positive social change is even harder
22:08:30 <sbp> why are they uploaded to a different site, anyway?
22:08:32 <tav> sbp: once published it'd appear on the audioblog, so it won't be in that directory anyways...
22:08:44 <sbp> __t: I wanted to look at the index so I could see all of the radio shows
22:08:47 <jeffarch> (off to dinner for real this time...bbiab)
22:08:52 <sbp> just in case one hadn't been linked from the homepage yet
22:08:53 <tav> __t: can you also add a link to the Planet: 24 Weeks to the right hand side?
22:09:12 * sbp normally uses o/`
22:10:06 <sbp> tav: so what do you think about use cases for Plexnet?
22:10:21 <sbp> that's the biggest thing on the list that we haven't tackled yet
22:11:23 <tav> well, recall 24days.png ?
22:11:27 <sbp> yes
22:11:32 <sbp> .g 24days
22:11:35 <phenny> sbp: http://24days.com/
22:11:37 <sbp> heh
22:11:40 <sbp> .g 24days inamidst
22:11:42 <phenny> sbp: http://inamidst.com/changes/
22:12:06 <sbp> stupid google. anyway, got it. what about it?
22:12:34 * sbp is very, very worried that you're going to say that has anything in it that even remotely passes for a use case...
22:12:36 <__t> sbp: http://audioblog.c-base.net/?cat=2&feed=rss all the shows
22:12:52 <sbp> __t: many thanks
22:12:53 <tricknik_> 24 Days of Christmas Special Event?
22:13:00 <sbp> so days 4 and 5 are indeed missing. m'kay
22:13:13 <sbp> and day 6, the current day, which is almost done
22:14:26 * sbp notes also that the radio feed isn't linked to from 24weeks.com
22:14:49 <sbp> tav? 24days.png?
22:15:18 <tav> well, those are the various use cases if you will ;p
22:15:18 <tav> so, the system *was* designed based on that
22:15:18 <tav> make sense?
22:15:18 <tav> also, __t: can you link http://www.gahr.info/bilder/v/esp_001/24_weeks/ ?
22:15:29 <sbp> no, doesn't make the least sense
22:15:33 <sbp> those are not use cases
22:15:45 <sbp> use cases have a very definite scenario. they're stories; they have a narrative
22:16:12 <tricknik_> sbp is right.
22:16:14 <sbp> they outline situations, problems with the situations, and then required alternatives
22:16:38 <sbp> people should be able to identify them, or at least understand them
22:17:01 <sbp> if you look at the single example that jeffarch and I generated in the logs, you'll see how tremendously useful they are. he introduced his TTK to me and I had no idea what it was
22:17:02 <xena> https://projects.espnow.com/kalati/changeset/713 by t (1 changed) in project/constitution/ -- 'mainly spelling and grammar corrections' -- constitution.rst (U)
22:17:21 <tav> __t: can you also link to the radio feed?
22:17:21 <tav> sbp: well, those blobs are "representations" of various use cases discussed with several hundred people over the years
22:17:21 <tav> *nod*
22:17:21 <tav> the problem is that none of the use cases have ever been documented
22:17:23 <sbp> then he gave a narrative use case, and instantly I not only understood it but almost felt like I was contributing towards some of the development of it
22:17:39 <sbp> right, so they need to be documented, so I contend in the TAD
22:17:42 <tricknik_> that png also ignores some major technical issues, such as that the there exists no scalable algorthym for the traversal of trust networks
22:18:04 * tricknik_ greats salfield
22:18:18 * tricknik_ will send salfield email tomorrow .)
22:18:23 *** WorldDomination (n=Jay@ANice-252-1-107-119.w86-211.abo.wanadoo.fr) has joined #esp
22:18:33 <__t> 4 is coming soon
22:18:33 <__t> it will be a long version ...
22:18:57 <WorldDomination> re
22:19:06 <sbp> yes, 24days.png is also the source for my second (I think) issue, that of the fact that we've bitten off more than we can chew. see, especially, "NAAGA". it has "programming language" scribbled next to it; and yet tav's description of it in the past makes me think that it'd take a decade for a host of programmers to develop
22:19:40 <sbp> if that's how long it'd take to implement one of the hastily scribbled things in that diagram, the whole thing could add up to centuries' worth of man hours
22:19:48 <sbp> it's too much
22:20:08 <tav> true
22:20:20 <tricknik_> (not to mention the fact that that there _still_ exists no scalable algorthym for the traversal of trust networks)
22:20:21 <tav> but, naaga isn't on the current road map...
22:20:22 <sbp> we already resolved that we need to get more interest and a better culture to part fix that
22:20:27 <sbp> I'm not sure how we fix the rest
22:20:33 <sbp> tav: yeah, granted that too. thankfully! :-)
22:20:45 <sbp> (though also sadly, because programming language design is *awesome*)
22:21:01 <sbp> tricknik_: heh, yeah, factor the time to create that in too :-)
22:21:29 <sbp> (taking your word for it, by the way; I don't know much about trust networks)
22:21:32 <tricknik_> sbp, it is the subject of many PHD disertaions.
22:21:42 <tav> the idea is -- and this might be naive of me -- that with a good enough xnet and clarity of vision, we could attract those who are already working on these issues
22:21:43 <sbp> oho
22:22:01 <sbp> tav: well that's nice, but again, we need to start at the beginning...
22:22:04 <sbp> we don't have xnet yet
22:22:06 * tricknik_ would like to see the 24d png redone with _no_ new buzzwords added, only _existing_ software as a starting point
22:22:10 <sbp> and we don't have clarity of vision! :-)
22:22:24 <tricknik_> ...and then another effort to explain where current software wont work.
22:22:37 <tav> e.g. take tricknik_, he's already doing aspects of plexchat, &c. and quite nicely too...
22:22:37 <sbp> hmm, that'd be cool. perhaps also stripping out all the bits of "cruft" like naaga
22:22:57 <sbp> and is something that could be done on a whiteboard at Rich Mix
22:23:01 <tav> *nod* that'd be quite good to do
22:23:04 <sbp> and then exported to the web
22:24:35 <sbp> but I'd rather have use cases, I think
22:24:45 <sbp> and people working on archival rather than design
22:25:01 <sbp> and stripping all espian activities of HTTP auth
22:25:14 * tricknik_ still thinks we need this:
22:25:14 <WorldDomination> cheers everybody
22:25:23 <sbp> yo WorldDomination
22:25:39 <tricknik_> def getPath(interaction, requestingNode, AuthorisingNode):
22:25:52 <tricknik_> [insert code here]
22:25:54 <tav> sbp: agreed on use cases; think archival and design need to take place in parallel; and, yes, to stripping of http auth
22:26:00 <tricknik_> return authorised_path
22:26:14 <sbp> tav: awesome. I can swing with that
22:26:28 <tricknik_> one we have that function, then _a lot_ becomes possible.
22:26:50 <sbp> tricknik_: know any PhD candidates studying trust networks that'd be willing to swing by...? :-)
22:27:00 <sbp> we have zool, of course, who knows a thing or two about it I believe
22:27:22 <sbp> I used to know some vaguely, but I don't think I'm strongly enough acquainted with them anymore to ask. bit of a shame. the UMD dudes
22:27:27 <sbp> Jen Golbeck especially
22:27:32 <tricknik_> yes, and ww (haagenti here) and ryan fugger of ripplepay (see there google group for the current discussion)
22:29:55 <tricknik_> sbp, I think that the math part can only answer part of the problem. accepting localisation is part of the answer, even if it is hard to accept for those that want pure, global, social webs
22:30:15 <WorldDomination> what happened to david schaums cybercash ?
22:30:38 <tav> WorldDomination: it's open for adoption now i think
22:30:52 <tav> anyways, so, sbp... i'd like resolution on all 8...
22:31:05 <tav> can you summarise pls?
22:31:37 <WorldDomination> just open up your ideas and publish them
22:31:45 <tav> bearing in mind -- that my 5 day isolation is intended to produce: a plexnet sketch which implements the absolute essentials of "xnet" so that we can bootstrap and /begin/
22:31:49 <WorldDomination> have people be able to contribute by forums
22:32:04 <tav> WorldDomination: yats ?
22:32:12 <tav> yet-another-talking-shop
22:32:13 <WorldDomination> yats ?
22:32:32 <sbp> open up the ideas is for 2 and 7
22:32:34 <WorldDomination> well tav I m not in the position to complain
22:32:42 <WorldDomination> but
22:32:43 <tav> that'll have exactly the problem that sbp suggested in #6
22:32:47 <WorldDomination> I d really enjoy seeing some design
22:32:57 <WorldDomination> havent read the logs sorry
22:33:00 <tricknik_> tav, do you have any software currently in production? I'd be interested in taking a look.
22:33:01 <WorldDomination> just dropped in
22:33:12 <tricknik_> (from any project pas or present, but in active use)
22:33:13 <tav> sbp: ah, nothing against opening up the ideas -- just not doing *only* that
22:33:18 <sbp> tav: my qualm in 8 is basically that there are no use cases and as a result of that or perhaps other things, I have no freaking idea what the Plexnet is for, how it works, or how to develop any of it
22:33:42 <tav> tricknik_: ehm, the stuff running www.green.tv i guess
22:33:53 <tricknik_> tav, is it downloadable?
22:33:59 <sbp> tricknik_: there was some code from 2005 called the protoplex, but you wouldn't be interested. seriously, seriously trust me :-) it was so messy that it took me two days, I think, to get it trivially running...
22:34:19 <tav> tricknik_: nope, but we are working with greenpeace and the united nations on a public domaining of the source code behind it thingie
22:35:10 <tav> sbp: hmz, so after the first 5 days, another 5 days for me to write-up the core use cases behind 24 weeks?
22:35:12 <sbp> if you do get your hands on it, here's how to install it...
22:35:12 <sbp> http://inamidst.com/stuff/2006/protoplex-install
22:35:25 <sbp> tav: yeah, that'd be good
22:35:34 <sbp> but, do it entirely in public space
22:35:43 <sbp> so we can see what you're doing and feedback whilst you're doing it
22:35:44 * tricknik_ also wonders about the socialy necessary reproduction cost of software development and how this project intends to sustain itself, but will avoid talking about socialism for now.
22:36:07 <sbp> the neoprotoplex you can code in your grotto because we have no vested interest in it beyond the final product being whatever you choose it to be
22:36:08 <tricknik_> sbp, thanks will take a look.
22:36:32 <sbp> with the use cases, you'll prolly need feedback on which ones people find compelling and which ones we don't
22:36:42 <sbp> we being, anyone who's actually interested in making the Plexnet
22:37:17 <sbp> you might even find that once you do a couple, we can start to join in...
22:37:27 <sbp> it only took jeffarch one before I started to come on board to his thing
22:37:41 <sbp> he did more in that area in six minutes than esp has done in six years!
22:37:47 <tav> okay, so i code until wednesday evening underground, and then either from that point on, add use cases to the xnet or .... use a trac to document the use cases publically
22:38:02 <sbp> excellent. wonderful
22:38:15 <tav> there's already a public trac @ https://projects.espnow.com/24weeks
22:38:27 <sbp> is that linked from 24weeks.com?
22:38:47 <tav> yes and no, the svn browse aspect is, nothing else is
22:39:10 <sbp> tsk
22:39:31 <tav> i don't want anything besides the svn browse to be used unless i fail with this xnet thing
22:39:35 <sbp> better than tsk, an idea: can we have a wiki of some kind?
22:39:39 <tav> (on the trac thing that is)
22:39:45 <sbp> other than the trac wiki, I mean. like, a MediaWiki perhaps?
22:39:48 <tav> https://projects.espnow.com/24weeks/wiki
22:40:05 <sbp> because then we wouldn't have to rely on central admins to add these sorts of useful links
22:40:16 <tav> trac wiki is open ?
22:40:19 <sbp> it's a huge burden on them, and they don't seem to be standing up
22:40:28 * tricknik_ trac is a wiki
22:40:54 <sbp> yeah, but it sucks. MediaWiki seems canonical these days
22:41:06 * tricknik_ likes moinmoin
22:41:13 <sbp> yeah, moinmoin is okay
22:41:15 <tricknik_> but if links are the issue, any wiki will do
22:41:25 <sbp> I must admit I'd rather have something where you can get a dump of it, at any rate
22:41:47 <sbp> yeah, but I don't want to invest in one thing and have to migrate later
22:41:48 <tricknik_> scp -Cr user@host:/usr/share/moin .
22:42:00 <tav> guys, *if* i fail with this xnet thing, then yeah, you can have the mediawikis and moinmoins as you want =)
22:42:08 <sbp> because I did that once before; started with KWiki or something crap like that, and migrated to MediaWiki later on. it was *hellish*
22:42:15 <tav> aye
22:42:23 <tav> migration is the reason i avoid using anything ;p
22:42:24 <sbp> tav: okay. yeah, sorry, all this is Plan B of course
22:42:27 <sbp> hehe
22:42:30 <sbp> awesome quote
22:43:01 <sbp> I don't have much belief in your Plan A. I have to say :-)
22:43:08 <tav> why? ;p
22:43:22 * tricknik_ wonders if he should mention "man in a room" anti-pattern
22:43:24 <sbp> precedent. but I do have enough belief that I definitely think you should try it!
22:43:33 <tav> tricknik_: what's that?
22:43:51 <tricknik_> a common way software projects fail, see c2 wiki
22:43:57 <sbp> .g ManInARoom
22:44:00 <phenny> sbp: http://www.beatport.com/forums/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=10406&Main=10406
22:44:02 <sbp> wait, that can't be a pattern name
22:44:11 <sbp> got a c2 link for us?
22:44:17 <tricknik_> One sec..
22:44:19 <sbp> ta
22:44:35 <tav> i'm gonna have a smoke break -- if you could explain further as well as perhaps describe what your (sbp/tricknik/jeffarch/anyone else) expectations are of what is created -- that would be nice
22:45:10 <sbp> created in the next few days, or created overall?
22:51:32 <jeffarch> rehi
22:52:02 <sbp> tav: on the use cases, I'd like to aim for things which are compelling and universal (as many people as possible have this very specific problem and want to fix), but that is very exploitative of the technology, so that we can really see as many parts of the system at work in solving it
22:52:30 <sbp> the more concrete and the more narrative the use case, the better. make it realistic, and concentrate on specific people and what they do, not archetypes
22:52:51 <tav> next few days
22:53:27 <tav> sbp: makes sense (re: use cases) and am looking forward to that!