djh's musings corner

[Former Member]

Hi,

There seems to be much acrimony over djh's generous usage of S(D)N blog real estate.

I propose S(D)N gives him a permanent corner (like Grumpy's) where he can be free to voice his opinions to one and all. All earlier blogs could also be moved there. People interested in his insight could go there while others who are not appreciative of current situation can ease up.

Let these blogs be a no-points blogs, and the blogs appear not on the main page, but in a linked page <a href="https://wiki.sdn.sap.com/wiki/display/Community/BloggersaboutSAP">e.g. here</a>.

This should suffice his stated desire of sharing his many opinions/advice, while it will also take away the primary objection (points for blogs, too many blogs on the main blog page) of some others.

Other prolific bloggers may wish to go the same path (and setup their own blogspace on SDN) if they wish so.

What do you think?

[former_member181923]

Hi Ajay -

I think it's probably best to start this response with two things that I'm pretty sure we do agree on completely.

1, The primary purpose of the SDN blogspace (not the SDN forum space) should be skills-transfer - the dissemination and.or sharing of real honest-to-goodness "how-to" information that folks can use in their day to day work with SAP, or in work that they may be soon called upon to do.

2. "Instructional" SDN blog posts, i.e. posts written with this primary purpose in mind, should be completely straightforward. That doesn't mean they can't contain some jokes or humor here or there, but it does mean that they shouldn't contain any satire, irony, or anything else that requires the reader to "read between the lines." in order to get the point of the post.

That being said, I think our misunderstanding centers around the following:

3. You feel very strongly that SDN bloggers should post nothing but "instructional" blog posts of the sort described in (1) above, i.e. you think that ALL posts must be of this type except of course, for the usual kind of social and administrative posts that are appropriate from time to time.

4. Because you feel so strongly about this, you begin reading any given post assuming that it should meet cerrtain criteria of content and style.

5. And when a post doesn't meet these criteria, you immediately become suspicious of the poster's motivations. In particular, you suspect the poster of various "bad" ulterior motives when:

a) a post offers perspective instead of instruction;

b) a post is not straightforward, i.e. it uses irony, satire, and/or other techniques that require the reader to "read between the lines" to get the point of a post.

To put this point another way, our misunderstandings arise because your own mind-set forces you to assume that any poster who would make a post like that described in (5a-b) must have bad ulterior motives. Because to your way of thinking, there can be no good and worthwhile reason for any "legit" SDN poster to make such a post, i.e. a post that offers perspective instead of instruction and that may require the reader to "read between the lines" to get the point of the post.

So although I certainly can't convince you of anything, I would at least like to explain my motivations for posting "perspective posts" at SDN and for using techniques such as irony and satire that require the reader to "read between the lines".

Taking up the first of these two matters, let me try to explain why I think SDN should not only tolerate, but encourage, perspective posts. There are three main reasons for this:

1. The first reason why perspective posts are "good": they're good for SAP.

Ajay - I don't know if it's true, but what I've heard is that the original co-founders of SAP left IBM because IBM didn't share their vision of developing application software and wouldn't go down that path with them.

Suppose for the sake of discussion that this is true. Then who lost out in the long run by being closed-minded and not tolerating diversity of viewpoints within the corporate arena?

Certainly not the SAP co-founders. It was IBM who lost out by its inability to think outside its own conception of itself as an "iron and OS" company.

Could the same thing happen to SAP because there is not enough diversity within its community?

Could SAP fall victim to its own preconceptions of what it should be or do?

If you think this is impossible in principle, then I'd love to hear why. SAP may be a great software company, perhaps the best there's ever been - but that doesn't mean it's not a "mortal" company.

So assuming that you must agree in principle that SAP could fall victim to its own preconceptions (like any other large and successful company such as IBM), I would hope you'd also have to at least consider the possibility that "perspective" posts might be good for SAP and therefore should be encouraged at SDN.

And if you'll at least consider this possibility, then maybe you'll see that I might have an honest reason for posting "perspective" posts.

2. The second reason why perspective posts are "good": they're good for SDN.

Why do I say that perspective posts are good for SDN? Simple - because they're good for SDNers.

The reason I say this is that there a lot of younger people who read and post at SDN (21-35), and it is very important that these folks are offered many different perspectives on the IT profession they are in and the role of SAP software in this profession.

If these folks are not offered such perspectives, they may come to believe that they can count on being able to use their current SAP skills forever, without ever having to worry about a job. And this kind of belief can be very dangerous for people to hold - if you don't think so, just ask a lot of ex-IBMers in the Hudson River Valley of New York State (USA) what happened to them when they lost the value of their IBM stock they were counting on for their pensions and they couldn't even sell their houses because there were so many other IBMers trying to sell their houses at the same time for the same reason.

Please don't misinterpret me here, Ajay. I'm not sayng that SAP will "go bust" anymore than IBM went bust back then. What I am saying is that due to market forces, SAP may have to re-invent itself at least once if not twice more in the career spans of young SDNers now 21-35, and that some of the younger SDNers here may get badly hurt during these "re-inventions" if they don't gain enough perspective to realize that they can not allow themselves to believe in the permanence of anything IT-related, no matter what the hype and who's hyping it.

And therefore, I don't think it's such a bad idea for folks to post to SDN offering perspective on the history of IT and on how SDNers shoould evaluate current events in IT within the perspective of this history.

3. The third reason perspective posts are good: they show the strength of SAP.

Suppose SAP is so insecure about its current strategies and tactics that Mark/Mark/Marilyn/Craig decide they have to boot me off SDN because I'm "off-message" a lot of the time. Or any other poster who decides to go "off-message" from the point of view of SAP's marketing department.

What would that say about SAP - about its belief in what it is selling? Surely if a product and a strategy are good, they can withstand some honest scrutiny from different perspectives.

*****

Turning now to the second matter - the matter of style - here's the reason that I often don't make my points in a straightforward way, and instead ask the reader to do a lot of "reading between the lines".

It's simple.

First, I don't want to connect the dots for people. I'm hoping that my posts will stimulate folks to think about certain things in such a way that they will connect the dots for themselves.

Second, I know there are a number of SDNers out there who can and do "get" my posts right-off. And for them, I'd like to post with as much "panache" as I can, which means using all the irony and satire and rhetorical tricks of the trade that I can muster up.

**************************

Anyway, I'm sure you'll agree with very little of what I've said above, if anything at all.

But I sincerely hope that I've made a little headway toward convincing you that I am sincere in my reasons for posting the kinds of posts I do, and that I do not have any ulterior or bad motives for doing so.

Best regards,

djh

[Former Member]

David,

First of all, thanks for taking the time to explain your view in detail.

I do not mind perspective/opinion type posts (neither do most others I assume). Were it so, I would have reservations about, say, grumpy's post or to mention my own <a href="/people/ajay.das/blog/2005/12/19/social-computing-and-possible-business-models which is nothing but a vague kind of idea.

I don't have any issue with what you call a 'read between the lines' kind of blogs either.

What I disagree with, is

- At times, your blogs are built on very shallow premise, there is not much substance to it. What you think and present as a bomb, doesn't even resemble a 10-cent cracker.

- There is an undercurrent of elitism (Where you seek to differentiate yourself from developers who plainly follow the current/outdated technology, and so on (eg people who are vocabulary-challenged...)). My point is - you do not demand respect, you have to command it. So far, your contributions on SDN has done nothing much to gain my respect (to put you in the elite (developer or other) group that you so subtly keep on hinting everywhere). Even in your latest post, you suggest a 'widget' but when asked to lead from the front you are throwing it around for others to pick. Compare it with the work of, say, SAPLink guys.

This elitism drips from your posts and comments, and while I do not have much to disagree with 'elitism' per se; I very much disagree with your not-so-subtle assumption about your own, and others', position in this hierarchy.

I did follow your blogs from the beginning, and have found that behind literary refuge there is little substance in many cases (not in all, I admit); and it is disappointing. I would rather have a blogger who is prolific opinionator and has substance to back it up; than someone who is high on hype only.

As it is, we disagree; we disagree on what we are disagreeing about. Still,I appreciate your effort in replying on this thread.

cheers,

[former_member181923]

Hi Ajay -

Believe it or not, I actually think we're making progress here. We've cleared away some underbrush and are now left with the two issues you raised in your last post here:

a) are my posts insubstantial?

b) are my posts elitist.

I therefore want to address both these issues in a response that I will post later - again - I don't have the time to compose this response right now.

For the moment, however, I have to ask you to please consider Thomas Jung's and Chris Solomon's responses in my "EnjoySAP Controls" thread - the very one you mentioned above as being "insubstantial". I treasure Thomas' reply because I think it is the first time he has ever responded to a blog post of mine, and I treasure Chris' responses because they so very well amplify the precise point I was trying to make about the relation of Controls to later SAP UI technologies.

Given Thomas' and Chris' responses, can you really still say that the thread was "insubstantial"?

Anyway, I want to assure you again that I am taking your comments about "elitism" very seriously and will respond to them tonight or at lunch today.

Best regards

djh

[eddy_declercq]

Guys,

With all respect (and without pretending to be a moderator), but can this endless (close to flaming) discussion be closed pls? I think nobody (certainly not the community) benefits from this. If you prefer to continue this, I would suggest that you e-mail each other. It's only a matter of clicking on the BC link.

Sorry to be a spoiler.

Eddy

-

---

Pimp up the S(D)N site and earn points. Check this <a href="/people/eddy.declercq/blog/2007/02/01/pimp-up-the-jam log</a> for details

[Former Member]

Hi Eddy, I can understand your concern however we did tell everyone that if they wanted the blog system and expectations changed they need to talk about it and make it happen.

But as to your concern that David vs. Ajay is getting a bit out of hand I would have to agree - if the conversation can continue in general about blogging expectations OK otherwise to avoid the "very personal" issues I would have to agree and ask that you two take it offline. Unless you can ensure it won't turn into a flaming contest.

[Former Member]

Fair enough. If I have any further one-on-one points to discuss, will do it over email.

cheers,

[Former Member]

Just don't want things to get "ugly" is all you raise good points and provided things don't get "ugly" I say continue

[former_member374]

Hi Community,

I had problems to get to this thread yesterday. Unfortunately my oppinion is different from Eddy's as well as Craig's and I respect both of these contributors a lot.

The discussion here was in my oppinion very civil and both sides put down their arguments and it made it clearer for me a lot.

People here like to read oppinion pieces, or at least tollerate them. What in my oppinion may be the problem at the moment is the frequency and derived from that frequenzy the lack of depth in the blog posts.

David, how about for the next few weeks you post less, let's say once every other week. That gives you time to put a post together that knocks everyones socks off.

I am interested in your AI example, although I don't think it will hold water

The thing is you may have posted it already and I missed it within all the other posts.

A djh post ever now and again for good measure I would appriciate. For me the pure "how-to's" are not that interesting.

Just my two cents, Mark.

[former_member181923]

Ajay -

First - I want to say that our discussion is now pretty much moot because before Mark Finnern posted his suggestion about bi-weekly frequency here, I had already emailed SDN management indicating that I was going to: i) cut back to once a week posts, keep these posts purely technical; ii) eliminate any stylistic habits tthat might make these posts difficult to understand. (Since Mark wants a bi-weekly frequency, I will of course follow his suggestion here - n'importe pas.)

But since SDN management has given the go ahead to continue our discussion, I wanted to first set the record straight concerning your claim that I over-value myself in the scheme of things. By "set the record straight" I mean provide hard evidence that this claim is simply wrong.

The hard evidence is in this post here:

<a href="/people/david.halitsky/blog/2006/12/22/if-it-really-is-a-profession-what-is-our-pro-bono-contribution-as-it-professionals </a>

In this post, I wrote the following (direct quote):

"Certainly, any of the SAP SDN Expert Forums are "clinics" of exactly this type, and the experts who answer questions in these Forums are doing the same kind of pro bono work as doctors and lawyers.

And any of the bloggers here who try to explain really complicated things to us

lesser mortals are doing the same thing.

And even dummies like me do their part by trying to urge the IT profession out of the many smug, complacent, and self-serving attitudes that characterize it today."

If, after reading that direct quote, you are still willing to argue with a straight-face that I over-value myself in the scheme of things, I can only be glad that our difference of opinion is now, as I said earlier, enitrely moot.

Regards,

djh

[former_member181923]

Mark -

Thanks for taking a moment of your time to comment here. I'm totally down with your bi-weekly idea - it's a minor adjustment to the "self-policing" policy I had already emailed to SDN management. And I apologize in advance for not providing any further "perspective" posts. Given the fact that SDN openly tolerates repeated ad homs from its staff as well as from its members, such posts have too great a probability of winding up unintentionally inflammatory.

To tell you the truth, my only regret about this whole sorry affair is that I may have inadvertently caused you to regret your decision to encourage my SDN participation. And even more so Marilyn, since she originally "recruited" me.

Anyway, since I've voluntarily sworn-off "perspective" stuff for hard-core technical stuff that can't be misinterpreted in any possible way, this is my last opportunity to banter with you about anything substantive.

So I'd like to respond to your comment about AI as follows.

First, if you have the time, please take a moment to scan these two posts on "Enterprise SOA for the Skeptic, Parts I and II):

<a href="/people/david.halitsky/blog/2007/01/17/enterprise-soa-for-the-skeptic-part-i-finding-tangible-incentives-to-create-win-wins-in-multi-player-scenarios </a>

<a href="/people/david.halitsky/blog/2007/01/20/enterprise-soa-for-the-skeptic-part-ii-show-me-the-money </a>

Second, if you have the time to form an opinion, please decide whether the "after the fact" Enterprise SOA scenario which I sketched out is or is not a "good" Enterprise SOA solution.

And third, if you think it is a "good" solution, please consider what would happen if you replaced the initial human triggers with an AI system that managed to detect at least some problems before they happened.

If you've get this far (and I realize you probably won't have the time to do so), perhaps you might disagree with my premise a little less. Not much, but a little.

Very best regards

djh

[Former Member]

Fair enough.

Working with the S(D)N community to find a way forward was the original idea of this thread and it seems we are going to see some changes to that end.

I consider this thread closed (for me).

I apologize for any flame I triggered.

Regards,

Message was edited by:

Ajay Das

[former_member583013]

Hi Ajay:

Actually....I don't think so...The Grumpy exists for a good reason....To criticize the SDN and tried to make it better.....

With DJH's I don't think that the case....

Greetings,

Blag.

[Former Member]

... and hence Grumpy blogs actually get extra visibility via Community Corner area.

Not sure that is necessary for DJH. I mean there is no reason neither to "isolate" his posts nor to expand their visibility at several places.

Btw, I find his posts funny. Though, many of them share same idea: if everyone believes in Ktulhu (SOA/ESA, rewrite of ABAP controls in WD etc), then should me too ???

VS

[marilyn_pratt]

What, pray tell, is: Ktulhu. I tried Google, but it is very cryptic...

[Former Member]

Marilyn,

My pardons, I misspelled the word trying to directly transliterate it from Russian: actually in English it sounds like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu">Cthulhu</a>

Hope my mistakes didn't awake him

VS

[former_member181923]

Valery -

Heh heh heh. I knew who you meant.

Yes - - you're correct - there is a common theme running through by blog posts - namely, that one can be a loyal member of the SAP community without giving up one's right, and more importantly, one's obligation, to think critically.

Regards

djh

[former_member181923]

Alvaro -

You're absolutely correct. My primary interest is not in making the SDN community a better place - it's making the SAP community a better place.

Do I have it backwards? Does SAP exist for SDN?

Regards

djh

[former_member181923]

Hi Ajay -

I think maybe you might not be understanding something intrinsic to the notion of a blog - blogging is something a blogger is supposed to do frequently.

I would be very happy if everyone frequently shared their perspectives on the SAP community, no matter what this did to their point-count or the "front-page".

In this regard, see my comments to Valery and Alvaro.

With respect to points, I have already asked Craig if changing my post category in each of my past posts to "Ranting" would zero out the points automatically. Craig can verify that I asked him about this.

He said this doesn't happen automatically - that SDN management has to zero the points and that they're not going to do this "ex post facto".

But as soon as SDN management changes its mind on this point, please be assured that I will be the first to zero the points of all my past posts by changing their category to "Ranting".

Best regards

djh

[Former Member]

Once again it seems you have taken something out of context. Our response to zeroing your blogs was to zero those that fall under the category "ranting" not all of your blogs fall under that category and we see no point in taking away your points for those - if you feel otherwise I can recommend places like <a href="http://wordpress.org">wordpress.org</a> and <a href="http://blogger.com">blogger.com</a> and use of the special Technorati tags described <a href="https://wiki.sdn.sap.com/wiki/display/Community/BloggersaboutSAP">here</a>

Now it has been made very clear in multiple posts over the last several months that there is a certain expectation in terms of "blogs" here and until that changes (the community decides as a whole) certain blog posts here are simply unacceptable. This is not the wide world blogosphere and therefore it's <b>NOT</b> everything goes.

So take this thread as your opportunity to change the minds of what the community expects and you are good to go.

Also a special area just for David is at the moment not something that we wish to pursue.

[marilyn_pratt]

Thanks Valery for the Cthulhu explanation....perhaps we shouldn't fear, as that fear only gives more power. What works? Ignoring?

And perhaps we can defuse some of the negative with this misquote of Voltaire: <a href="http://www.classroomtools.com/voltaire.htm">"I disagree with what you have to say but will fight to the death to protect your right to say it"</a>

[Former Member]

" think maybe you might not be understanding something intrinsic to the notion of a blog - blogging is something a blogger is supposed to do frequently. "

That should not mean the superficial or half-baked stuff to be thrown around, just because it is supposed to be done frequently. If you can't think of great stuff everyday, you shouldn't take that as a cue to spit mundane ones, just for the sake of blogging.

Let me try to express myself directly, again.

Many of your blogs are superficial, eg, the one talking about enjoySAP controls. All you say is you have come across something in SAP that not many people use. Maybe you would appreciate if people start posting on ADOBE forms to SAPCONSOLE in similar vein <i>without mentioning anything of real value</i>. These maybe facts but to what end it is worthy of an S(D)N blog entry?

It really is stuff that you should have in your own blogspace, where people impressed with your ideas/thoughts can come and read and discuss. I strongly encourage you to host your own blog, which as you know is free. S(D)N blogs main page is a community place and your misplaced valuation of your own ideas is not helping it.

Throwing the responsibility on S(D)N team (if they tell me to move my blogs to ...., I will do it), doesn't cut it. In the end it is always better if a blogger can apply the discretion before posting a blog on S(D)N; in your case that discretion seems to be nowhere. Maybe you do apply that, just that I do not agree with it, hence voicing my suggestion in the 'suggestions' forum.

My thoughts only,

[Former Member]

Ajay,

With all respect to your opinion... Why this thread is running in this forum but not in David's blog?

VS

[Former Member]

VS,

I thought since it is not related to any one blog, it might be logical to put it here.

Also I wanted others to pitch in their opinion on it.

Maybe I should blog instead

cheers,

[former_member181923]

Ajay -

From your last post, I can see that what we have here is an honest misunderstanding.

This is good, because honest misunderstandings can almost always be resolved amicably.

But to resolve this particular misunderstanding, I am going to have to write a fairly lengthy reply that I can't compose while I'm at work.

So please be patient and look for a reply in the next couple of days (assuming you're interested in reading it.)

Of course, it may turn out that even after you read my reply, we will still have an honest disagreement - particularly one about the purposes of SDN and the purposes of blog posts at SDN.

But at least we will have a disagreement and not a misunderstanding.

The other reason I want to take time in composing my reply to you is because Craig has more or less asked me to take this opportunity to explain publicly why I post the kinds of blog posts that I post.

And I don't want to disappoint him with an explanation that is too hurriedly composed or incomplete or faulty in some respect.

So please be patient and I promise to respond.

Best regards

djh