Digifesto

Academic holy wars and conference acceptances

I’m inspired by Mel Chua’s recent posts about culture shock of entering academia from the open source. I don’t have her humility about it and so am convinced that they are doing a lot of things wrong more or less from the get-go, so I’m more or less looking for problems. That said, one came up at lunch with an old friend who’s finishing up his PhD.

My friend Joe reports that sometimes, when papers are submitted to conferences, academic holy war disputes will sometimes affect whether papers get accepted.

Ok, maybe that doesn’t sound like much of a surprise, but it’s an interesting mechanism.

According to Joe, conference papers are reviewed by attendees. Informally, somebody who gets their paper accepted is required to review 3 or so other papers. Nothing bad there.

However, when there is a “holy war” — a major division within the field about a basic theoretical or methodological issue — these religious persuasions will affect the reviews and lead to some papers being rejected despite what we could suppose to be their objective merits.

Is this bad? Is it any different from the open source process? I think so.

But not because of the dispute itself. There’s got to be some substance to these kinds of theoretical and methodological differences. Gosh, open source is full of divisive holy wars, and in general they are a good thing, since competing camps race to innovate and prove that Python is a better programming language than Ruby, or whatever.

The difference in the academic domain is that these conferences are a bottleneck for publication and accreditation, and the conference process itself is not easily forked. So the paper selection process is not merely curational, in the sense of selecting papers of interest for the attendees. Rather, rejected papers are silenced and discredited.

Some balance has to be struck. There has to be some venue for a real conflict of ideas, because unless you fight the holy war, how can you find out who is right? On the other hand, since individual’s reputations are tied to the success of their religion, there is an incentive for doctrinaire and skulduggerous rejection of opposing papers without regard to how much these papers contribute to the field.

What’s the solution? We could imagine a more open, web-based unconference system for accepting papers. There could be the same requirement that one has to review other papers in order to get ones own paper included. Reviews can include rating metadata that affects its prominence within the conference; reviewers could also be rated (for their comments) to give them additional clout within the community. Then you could track discrepancies in people’s ratings on controversial items to detect where the holy wars are at and correct for them statistically when awarding credit.

Goodbye, and Hello

This summer I have been transitioning to a new life chapter.

For the past four years I have worked at OpenPlans, or what was once The Open Planning Project, and specifically for OpenGeo. I couldn’t say enough about the range and depth of experiences or the wildness of the ride with that organization. For now, suffice it to say that I entered with a lot of enthusiasm for ideas of open source, technology, and good governance. Working at OpenPlans was a way to experience the confrontation of those ideas with reality.

What has been beautiful to witness is that those ideas are alive and victorious. While everything has been harder than it looked on paper, the dreams shared by so many about the promise of technology for justice are becoming real. They aren’t just dreams. They are truth.

I’m so proud to have worked in this field. What’s more, I’ve been able to be a part of OpenGeo growing as a company to become a vibrant force in world of geospatial software. This is exciting not only because it is changing the way governments use open software and open data, but also because it proves its business model. Through its success, OpenGeo shows a path of economic transformation that’s available to public and private organizations alike.

I’ve now left OpenGeo so that I can begin working towards a PhD at the UC Berkeley School of Information. Here is how their website describes the program:

The School of Information is both UC Berkeley’s newest and its smallest school. Located in the center of campus, the I School is a graduate research and education community committed to expanding access to information and to improving its usability, reliability, and credibility while preserving security and privacy. This requires the insights of scholars from diverse fields—information and computer science, design, social sciences, management, law, and policy.

I can’t explain any better than this what the program is. And to be honest, I don’t yet know what I will be doing there. It is an open future.

That said, what I better be doing there is writing more. I expect that at least initially I’ll be writing a lot of my day to day discoveries here. So, if you’ve been following this blog, then Goodbye, and Hello.

GeoNode Jobs

Despite the economy, there are lots of jobs cropping up to work on GeoNode.

OpenGeo’s hiring a new GeoNode developer, along with several other positions (a UX developer and a Global Support Services Manager.) See here for more details on careers at OpenGeo.

Robert Soden, GFDRR Lab’s new Geo Lead, recently posted this to the GeoNode developer’s list:

The World Bank’s GFDRR Labs team is seeking to hire a developer to work with us on GeoNode and several other exciting mapping projects. As part of the Open Data for Resilience Initiative (OpenDRI), the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery collaborates with partners to deploy GeoNode in a number of countries around the world. The right candidate will assist the team in facilitating these deployments, contributing to the core software, and interfacing with the GeoNode community of users and developers.

If you’re interested, please contact me at: rsoden@worldbank.org. Deadline to apply is August 15, 2011.

It’s a growing community. Please consider becoming a (paid) part of it.

Oh but of course: comparison of Google and Open Source innovation models

What is below is mere speculation. I don’t know anything about Google.

I guess this just is an admission of naivete, but one of the most surprising things about Google+ to me right now is that it’s been a surprise. Wave was a huge technical investment that flopped. Buzz happened and was meek. For some reason, they became old news. But Google is super organized on the inside, and can actually afford to annoy people mildly or lose cool points for the sake of conducting an experiment. Does Google+ use Wave technology? Well who knows because it’s locked down behind the NDA. Was it inspired by Buzz usage and feedback? Is it powered by Buzz data? It’s safe to assume so, right?

Part of Google’s power is that it isn’t just a startup operating in the market. It is a whole bunch of startups operating in a coordinated collective. A lot of its advantage is in its efficiency as an incubator, which means its ability to recycle old technology choices, talent, expertise. It’s other advantage is to have a business model that’s going to scale up with the amount of data collected, which means it can focus on user experience).

The only comparable thing I know of in terms of efficient recycling of technology and content is the “open source world.” People build technology for their application or to scratch their itch, and it sticks around for reuse. if a particular funder drops a project that has reached half of its potential, the same team can find a new funder to pick it up and take it the rest of the way. And hackers who learn something on one project are under no legal restrictions to take that human capital with them on to the next.

But there isn’t a unified business model for open source development. Its still struggling for funding, fighting the inherent free rider problems and figuring out how to get funders who are willing to take risk.

Interview on National Broadband Map architecture

Interview with Juan Marín Otero from Computech on development of the National Broadband Map, released by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Federal Communications Commission.

The selection of open source software has been critical in my opinion. The entire project has been constructed with open source tools, from the operating system to the last JavaScript library used in the presentation layer. The main reasons are the flexibility and easy development that these solutions give us. When we evaluated the requirements of this project, some open source tools began with a clear advantage (functionality and easy to deploy) over most of the commercial tools.

Developing on open source has given us the flexibility needed in a project like this without having to worry about whether we had enough licenses per computing “core” or not, and choosing the right components for each requirement, rather than having to adopt monolithic suites with great functionality but poor performance and little chance of adaptation. One of the advantages that may seem trivial but in this work environment is very important is that I have the whole project on my laptop, and I can make changes from a Starbucks, if necessary (and I use this example because it happened to me once on the project).

No adequate social media options

While this post is guaranteed to be a pile of cliches, I need to write it anyway to get it off my chest.

None of the current social media platforms are doing it for me right now. Why is that?

There are the minimal functions that I want out of social media.

Self-expression. There needs to be a blogging/publishing platform to support self-expression. So that that self-expression can be authentic, there needs to be fine-grained privacy controls so that I can choose who I’m exposing my thoughts to.

Sharing. I want to take advantage of and participate in crowdsourced content curation on the web. When my friends are interested in something or think I will be interested in something, i want to hear about it. If like something that somebody has showed me, I want to be able to share it with other people. It is very important to me to be able to attribute the thing I’m sharing back to the person who shared it with me–it is a way of respecting them and congratulating their good taste, and not taking credit for how cool they are except by proxy. It is not at all important to me to acknowledge some global idea of how much something is “liked.”

So far, this description covers almost all the major platforms, especially Facebook and Buzz. However, those aren’t so good for other reasons.

One is that the software needs to be open source and my content portable from system to system. I don’t want Google or especially Facebook keeping ownership over all this material which might be very personal. I don’t want the features in my social media to be distorted by a profit motive.

Another has to do with comments. Comments on existing content are a means of self-expression and a means of sharing. Currently, the conventions around commenting are confused: bloggers will post a blog post which is essentially a comment on an existing work, with an excerpt, but will need to put it in a separate context because of technical constraints. Meanwhile, responses to a Buzz or Facebook item are displayed as second-class content and are not themselves resharable. I want my comments to be considered first-class self-expression and be stored on the service under my control.

Moreover, I want threaded comments, because ultimately what I want is to have conversations with the people I care about about the things we are sharing together, but I want to be able to filter out other commenters who I don’t care about.

So when I look at a piece of content shared by a friend, I want to know the lineage of how the friend found it, and I want to see the conversation about it thats been had by people I know about or who some algorithm thinks I could be interested in. I want to be able to tune out boring people and tune in interesting people.

I want there to be “communities,” which could really just be done through an ad hoc tagging system to start with. I.e., I would “follow” a tag and then see the feed of content surrounding that tag.

Of course, it would be hard to monetize such a service, as it would promote genuine community among people who care about each other and not the targeting of advertising. So as far as I’m aware such a thing doesn’t exist yet. But a guy can dream.

Holy War on Kiva more fun than throwing virtual sheep

Poking around web-enabled microlending organization Kiva‘s website, something that stuck out immediately was the “Lending Teams” feature, which prominently shows which teams have been most involved in micro-financing.

There is a holy war going on between Christians and Atheists to prove who are the better people. Atheists are winning.

Kiva president Premal Shah explains the phenomenon. Lending teams make Kiva fun, because (by implication) trash talking your ideological enemies is fun.

This is important, Shah notes, if Kiva is competing primarily for people’s attention. Since a lot of microloans are paid back, the cost of participation (for people with enough liquidity) is negligible. So what prevents people from doing more microlending is that they are too preoccupied throwing virtual sheep at each other, for example.

One hopes that no matter whether the Atheists or Christians are right, Farmville burns in the End Times.

“SDI Best Practices with GeoNode” Slides

Slides from my FOSS4G tutorial on GeoNode available here:

The talk was well received, and many people I talked to were interested in installing GeoNode. Overall, the conference was a great one.

Preparing for FOSS4G 2010

Two years ago when I had the incredible opportunity to go to FOSS4G 2008 with OpenGeo, I was very new to the scene. I had been working on OpenLayers-based web applications for just a year at that point. Attending that conference gave me a much broader look at the industry I was entering, and was a crucial chance to become better acquainted with the people behind the IRC handles I was learning to recognize.

I’m back this year, with eleven other members of OpenGeo. Our contingent’s preparation in the past few months has been led by Paul Ramsey, who has a deep professional and personal connection to the conference. We are more coordinated than ever before; if you’re at the conference, you’ll see us in matching t-shirts and with advertised “expert hours” at our booth. Our intention is to make a strong showing and become our own self-fulfilling prophecy of a successful and growing open source geospatial company.

A key part of that vision is OpenGeo’s main product, the OpenGeo Suite. As the internal argument goes, software consulting as programming-for-hire doesn’t scale up as a business model. To prove that open source geospatial can really triumph in the industry, open source consulting shops need to evolve into a product-based company that sells support and training, and funds software development indirectly–but more efficiently, as with more flexibility the company can make wiser long-run decisions. So we are here to sell Suite contracts, we were reminded in our team meeting earlier tonight.

But what’s keeping me up at night right now is the knowledge that this year, unlike two years ago, I have something to say: I’m giving a tutorial on Thursday morning with Galen Evans announcing GeoNode to the attending members of the FOSS4G community.

I am quite nervous. Though we have been tweeting and blogging and releasing news bites about GeoNode with increasing frequency in the past year or so of development, we have for the most part been too busy building it to publicize what we are working on. Often when I try to explain the project, I’m still met with “Ok, but what is it?”

Now I’m hoping we can just show people. We’ve been ironing out the bugs from our 1.0-beta release over for a couple weeks now, and despite some worrying regressions I’m confident that what we’ve got to show is something genuinely new, compelling, and full of potential.

But it’s not for me to decide that. I’ve had my nose stuck in this project for a year, and am still fairly green in the geospatial domain. Meanwhile, the community at FOSS4G is full of jaded industry veterans, well aware of the alternatives and the pitfalls of new software projects. And their judgment matters: GeoNode depends on many other FOSS geospatial projects’ communities, and for us the ideal is for more open source geospatial developers to see potential in GeoNode and consider contributing.

So a lot is riding on this conference. Even if GeoNode is a commercial success, it won’t stand for what it ought to unless it is also a community success. And for that to happen, it needs to earn the respect of colleagues at FOSS4G.

I suppose I really should get back to working on my slides…

GitHub Unicorn

GitHub consistently amazes me with how quickly it adds new features. Here is the latest one that blows my mind.

David Winslow tells me that this just part of a larger pattern of unicorns taking over the internet.