50 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2018
  2. Dec 2017
    1. As a developer familiar with Smalltalk I would myself describe it, in terms of its basic structure of entelechies and messages, as metabolically oriented, if I was forced to include orientation in the description

      Me recuerda la afirmación de Bonsiepe.

  3. Sep 2017
    1. a reading group is a common activity amongresearch labs. The purpose of a reading group is to stay on topof newly published research in a specific field. In most formats,one student is selected to present a research paper to the restof the group. Most reading group formats meet weekly from30 minutes to an hour.
    1. Members often toutthat “anyone can be a hacker.”While this claim is dubious– participation is limited by technical inclinations, skills, and comfort hanging around rowdy spaces –hackerspaces certainly helpproduce an “ordinary hacker.” Theyare sites where we can observe hacking’s movement from subculture to mainstream, and from an edgy to popular identity.

      Son los hackerspaces los espacios donde los hackers crean a los hackers, como un "bien recursivo" social. Habría que ver cómo es ese "hacker ordinario" y esos espacios de estéticas echizas y las preferencias de la gente afiliada por ellos y cómo esto configura o restringe formas de participación.

      Está creando el Data Week otro tipo de hacker que no es el ordinario, al tener llamados y poblaciones más diversas.

    2. Hackerspaces’ messy, heterogeneous interactions between people and things reflect an odd bundle of concepts. They are competitive andneoliberalist. Simultaneously, they are injected with feelings of community and liberal freedoms.To understand the logic that undergirds this confluence of concepts and where it leadsI argue we must return to Williams’ notion of ordinary.

      Esto se parece a la acepción de cultura diversa y definición abierta y multisituada de Coleman.

    3. Ordinariness– the everyday, unexceptional, and mundane – is a useful hermeneutic to view collective action and identity in hacker and maker spaces (or simply “hackerspaces”) (Schrock, 2014). This framing is a response toassumptions about hackers as exceptional. Two types of exceptionality have emerged. Critical scholars praiseactivism in hackerspaces(Maxigas, 2012)orotherwise bemoan the invisible hand of “cyberlibertarian” ideology(Golumbia, 2013). Then there are writers who look tohackerspaces as the key toeconomic profitability(Anderson, 2012). Thedefinitional disputebetween activism and corporatization bears more than a whiff of similarity toa previous such dispute; Pekka Himanen’s “hacker ethic”(Himanen, 2001) idealized hackers as labor for modernity, while McKenzie Warkpositioned hackers as a resistant class (Wark, 2004).
    1. The black boxes will most likely also contain ideas about the roles of the different types of engineers, programmers, designers, managers, and so on. If you take all this apart, you might look at the elements, throw away a lot of them, twist others, add stuff from elsewhere, and grow some on your own. You will look into different, often historical, technological paradigms, other ideas about what will become technologically possible (and when), different ideas of social order, the good life and problems that need addressing, other books to be read, alternative uses of the forces of media, and different ideas about the kind of people and the nature of their professions or non-professions, who should take charge of all this.
    2. Computing is to take the role of an infrastructure: much as books need light, but are not modeled after the light’s logic, the medium might draw, where necessary, on the computing possibilities provided by the OS in the background, but it should not be driven by them. Instead, the dynamic spatial medium should be driven by properties of the medium itself, and as such, it should drive technology.

      Esta relación entre frente y fondo, entre infraestructura y medio es importante sin embargo. ¿Cómo se pasa de la una a la otra? Grafoscopio, es una infraestructura para un medio escritural, pero esa transcición entre fondo y frente ayuda a cambiar la forma en que se escribe.

    3. The lab as a whole—its walls, desks, whiteboards, roofs, machines, and the people inhabiting it—functions as a first demo for an alternative medium.

      Esto es porque el laboratorio está habilitado por medios diversos embebidos en el espacio, lo cual nosotros aún no tenemos.

      Desde el "Sur Global", el hackerspace también funciona como un prototipo en sí mismo, de espacios comunitarios y convivenciales alternativos, así como de dinámicas de bootstrapping.

    4. As such, bootstrapping can assume different scopes and directions. While Engelbart’s and English’s project might sound ambitious, they still believed, at least in the 1960s, that bootstrapping inside a research group would achieve the desired results. Alan Kay’s Learning Research Group extended this setting in the 1970s through pedagogy and McLuhanite media theory. By bringing children in, they aimed to achieve recursive effects beyond the lab, with the long-term goal of involving the whole world in a process akin to bootstrapping. Bret Victor and his research group’s form of bootstrapping resembles a multi-layered onion. The kind of people who should be part of it, and at what moments, can lead to intense internal discussion.

      En mi caso, se trata de traer hacktivistas, periodistas, profesores y hacerlo desde espacios comunitarios y cívicos en lugar de, desde laboratorios.

    5. Simply building prototypes with prototypes would not be a smart recipe for radical engineering: once in use, prototypes tend to break; thus, a toolset of prototypes would not be a very useful toolset for developing further prototypes. Bootstrapping as a process can thus only work if we assume that it is a larger process in which “tools and techniques” are developing with social structures and local knowledge over longer periods of time. The processes are recursive, much like the “recursive publics” that Chris Kelty (2008:30) describes for the free software development community: in both cases developers create sociotechnical infrastructures with which they can communicate and cooperate, which then spread to other parts of life. Kelty shows how such recursive effects are not simply the magical result of self-enforcing positive feedback. Recursive processes are based on politics. And resources. And qualified personnel. And care. And steering. In short, they need to be continually produced.
    6. in a continuous process of “augmenting human intellect.” According to Engelbart, the latter can be achieved through the process of “bootstrapping.” This is a term that can mean many things in the Silicon Valley, from initiating systems to kicking off startups, but in the context of Engelbart’s work, bootstrapping is the “…interesting (recursive) assignment of developing tools and techniques to make it more effective at carrying out its assignment. Its tangible product is a developing augmentation system to provide increased capability for developing and studying augmentation systems” (Engelbart and English 2003:234). Just as Moore’s so-called law, this is a dream of exponential progress emerging out of nonlinear, self-enforcing feedback. How much more Californian can you be?

      Bootstrapping es el proceso que hemos usado en HackBo con Grafoscopio: Un contexto provee la necesidad para desarrollar una herramienta en solitario, que modifica las prácticas en ese contexto, y aumentaría la capacidad colectiva para modificar dicha herramienta y otras relacionadas.

      El ejercicio, como con la mayoría de proyectos de software libre, sigue ocurriendo en solitario, por ahora, pero hay más intereses colectivos aunándose.

  4. Feb 2017
    1. The Research Data Curation Bibliography includes over 620 selected English-language articles, books, and technical reports that are useful in understanding the curation of digital research data in academic and other research institutions.

      This list will be the source for my top down review. TODO: Add a link when the post is published

  5. Jan 2017
    1. From far away, successful Bazaars look like moneyless anarchic systems, but up close, the bulk of responsibility falls on a couple of people, who are usually being paid to do the work.

      O es parte de su investigación doctoral, como con Grafoscopio. El desarrollo de modelos de sostenibilidad alrededor del mismo está aún por verse.

    2. Open source projects don’t start as communitiesMany would agree that open source projects don’t start out as Bazaars, but just in case, I’ll emphasize the point. Raymond himself wrote:It’s fairly clear that one cannot code from the ground up in bazaar style. One can test, debug and improve in bazaar style, but it would be very hard to originate a project in bazaar mode. Linus didn’t try it. I didn’t either.Somebody has to be chiefly responsible for an open source project’s initial development. In Linux’s case, it was Linus. Somebody has to live and breathe the problem all day. Once that project is in a stable position, the community helps support it.

      Esto ha pasado con Grafoscopio y en otras comundiades como Leo. El trabajo permanente del autor incial es requerido mientras la comunidad se consolida y puede que esto nunca pase y siga siendo, sobre todo un proyecto individual.

      En el caso de Grafoscopio, el hecho de que el mismo lenguaje de narrativas de datos sea el de modificación del entorno (uniformidad y continuidad) ayudaría a crear una comunidad de co-creadores, sólo en caso de que los saberes en ella y las prácticas se consoliden, para lo cual se requieren tiempos y periodos más constantes e intensos de aprendizaje (algo en formato diplomado).

    1. lthough it is clear that reading scientific papers becomes easier with experience, the stumbling blocks are real, and it is up to each scientist to identify and apply the techniques that work best for them.
    2. At the beginning, new academic readers find it slow because they have no frame of reference for what they are reading.
  6. Dec 2016
    1. Smalltalk doesn’t have to be pragmatic, because it’s better than its imitators and the things that make it different are also the things that give it an advantage.
    1. Self contained. All of the source code is accessible inside the image. One can change any of it at any time. Every tool is written in Smalltalk. If one doesn't like how something works, one can change it. If one wants to add a feature, one is empowered to. Since everything is open, one can even change how the language works. It's programming without constraints. The original refactoring tools were written in Smalltalk.

      Yo mismo disfruté estas características y puedo dar fe de su potencia comparada con el paradigma Unix de una herramienta para cada cosa, hecha desde un paradigma totalmente distinto y con el código fuente bien "lejano" en algún repositorio remoto.

    1. Not every committer has the rights to release or make high level decisions, so we can be much more liberal about giving out commit rights. That increases the committer base for code review and bug triage. As a wider range of expertise in the committer pool smaller changes are reviewed and adjusted without the intervention of the more technical contributors, who can spend their time on reviews only they can do.

      Esto es clave. Si se consideran sistemas de integración continua asociados a los distintos repositorios (de código y documentación) con permisos en ellos, se pueden corregir los errores que se presenten, sin restringir grandemente la posibilidad de colaborar.

    2. We know what happens to unhealthy projects over a long enough time period, more maintainers leave, contributions eventually fall, and if we’re lucky users leave it. When we aren’t so lucky adoption continues and years later we’re plagued with security and stability issues in widely adopt software that can’t be effectively maintained.The number of users a project has is a poor indicator of the health of the project, often it is the most used software that suffers the biggest contribution crisis.
    3. This is what a healthy project should look like. As the demands on the project from increased users rise, so do the contributors, and as contributors increase more are converted into committers. As the committer base grows, more of them rise to the level of expertise where they should be involved in higher level decision making.If these groups don’t grow in proportion to each other they can’t carry the load imposed on them by outward growth. A project’s ability to convert people from each of these groups is the only way it can stay healthy if its user base is growing.

      El tránsito de usuarios a hacedores requiere espacios de formación más prolongados. Incluso en las varias iteraciones de los data weeks y a pesar de los saltos que permitía la infraestructura dicho tránsito no se dió pues el evento de la semana se terminaba. Por ello se hacen necesarios espacios como el diplomado que he estado planteando a partir de la experiencia de los últimos Data Weeks.

      La idea de tener más círculos concéntricos y pasar de los unos a los otros es clave en el desarrollo de dichas comunidades saludables, que no se ven sobrecargadas por el aumento en los usuarios.

      Grafoscopio no sufre del problema de muchos usuarios activos (incluso yo, como su autor y contribuyente más activo, lo uso de maneras esporádicas), pero con el aumento en la frecuencia y sobre todo la duración de los talleres (pasando de data weeks de 36 horas a diplomados de 90 a 120 horas) la maduración de la infraestructura podría traer un incremento grande de usuarios.

    4. Vocabulary* A Contributor is any individual creating or commenting on an issue or pull request. * A Committer is a subset of contributors who have been given write access to the repository. * A TC (Technical Committee) is a group of committers representing the required technical expertise to resolve rare disputes.

      Estas definiciones más granulares ayudan a las personas a sentirse parte de una comunidad. Otros roles podrían hacer parte agruparse en estas definiciones, por ejemplo, un documentador es alguien que tiene acceso de escritura a un repositorio de documentación (por tanto un commiter) y dichos accesos pueden ser otorgados a partir de la calidad con la cual se participa en los etherpads de los talleres como el Data Week, de modo que puedan crecer de maneras muy orgánicas. Para ello, infraestructuras mejoradas, que conecten los pads, los repos e incluso permitan la escritura colaborativa de libretas, han sido pensadas hace rato, pero requieren del tiempo para ser implementadas.

  7. Nov 2016
    1. Corporate practices can be directly hostile to individuals with exceptional skills and initiative in technical matters. I consider such management of technical people cruel and wasteful. Kierkegaard was a strong proponent for the individual against “the crowd” and has some serious discussion of the importance of aesthetics and ethical behavior. I couldn’t point to a specific language feature and say, “See, there’s the influence of the nineteenth-century philosopher,” but he is one of the roots of my reluctance to eliminate “expert level” features, to abolish “misuses,” and to limit features to support only uses that I know to be useful. I’m not particularly fond of Kierkegaard’s religious philosophy, though.

      Interesante ver cómo el lenguaje de programación es diseñado como una prevención contra la cultura corporativa.

    2. TR: How do you account for the fact that C++ is both widely criticized and resented by many programmers but at the same time very broadly used? Why is it so successful?BS: The glib answer is, There are just two kinds of languages: the ones everybody complains about and the ones nobody uses.There are more useful systems developed in languages deemed awful than in languages praised for being beautiful–many more. The purpose of a programming language is to help build good systems, where “good” can be defined in many ways. My brief definition is, correct, maintainable, and adequately fast. Aesthetics matter, but first and foremost a language must be useful; it must allow real-world programmers to express real-world ideas succinctly and affordably.

      La idea, de Stroupstrup en C++, de un lenguaje para escribir sistemas (¿de computo?) constrasta con la de uno que sirva a la expresión creativa del espíritu humano, de Ingalls en Smalltalk. El programador profesional como destinatario del lenguaje en C++ también contrasta con los niños en Smalltalk.

    3. And without real changes in user behavior, software suppliers are unlikely to change.

    Tags

    Annotators

  8. Oct 2016
    1. This bold claim has led design and critical scholars to hotly debate if participants have a technological ideology imposed on them, or if thinking with technologies enable new civic perspectives.

      Pueden estar ocurriendo ambas. La pregunta sería cuándo ocurre cuál. Unas pistas pueden estar del lado de la alfabetización crítica (Freire, Data Pop).

    2. Winners were praised by sponsors and rewarded with invitations to be part of an accelerator or incubator. Stories from the day generated ample traffic on social media and articles in local newspapers.
  9. Sep 2016
    1. But ultimately you have to stop being meta. As Jeff Kaufman — a developer in Cambridge who's famous among effective altruists for, along with his wife Julia Wise, donating half their household's income to effective charities — argued in a talk about why global poverty should be a major focus, if you take meta-charity too far, you get a movement that's really good at expanding itself but not necessarily good at actually helping people.

      "Stop being meta" could be applied in some sense to meta systems like Smalltalk and Lisp, because their tendency to develop meta tools used mostly by developers, instead of "tools" used by by mostly everyone else. Burring the distinction between "everyone else" and developers in their ability to build/use meta tools, means to deliver tools and practices that can be a bridge with meta-tools. This is something we're trying to do with Grafoscopio and the Data Week.

    Tags

    Annotators

  10. Apr 2016
    1. peerlearningandcooperativelearnin

      Look at definitions

    2. processofjointactivityitself.Rather,itiscreatedinthecourseofcollaboration:"Weproposethatanessentialfeatureoflearningisthatitcreatesthezoneofproximaldevelopment;thatis,learningawakensavarietyofdevelopmentalprocessesthatareabletooperateonlywhenthechildisinteractingwithpeopleinhisenvironmentandincollaborationwithhispeers"(Vygotsky,1978,p.90

      learning creates ZPD

    3. peercollaborationcannotignorewhateachindividualbringstothecollaborativeproces

      Cannot depersonalise

    4. seofpsychologicaltools

      Think about what these would be

    5. dwellssolelyoninterpersonalaspects,relyingontheconceptofthezoneofproximaldevelopment,reducesthetheoryinawaythatseriouslydetractsfromitsvalue

      See the paragraph above this. It's the interweaving of everything

    6. Vygotsky-inspiredresearchintopeercollaborativeprob-lemsolvinghasbeenlessplentifulbecauseVygotsky,unlikePiaget(especiallyinhisworkonmoralreasoning),didnotemphasizetheparticularbenefitsofpeercollaborationandfocusedmoreonadult-childinteraction.Vygotsky'stheory,however,hastremendousimplicationsforourunderstandingofpeercollaboration

      I can extend this to peer (many - many)

    Tags

    Annotators

  11. Mar 2016
    1. However, establishing psychological safety is, by its very nature, somewhat messy and difficult to implement. You can tell people to take turns during a conversation and to listen to one another more. You can instruct employees to be sensitive to how their colleagues feel and to notice when someone seems upset. But the kinds of people who work at Google are often the ones who became software engineers because they wanted to avoid talking about feelings in the first place.

      Mi experiencia es cercana a esto. Ingenieros con habilidades sociales más bien pobres, brillantes individualmente, pero con los que es difícil trabajar en equipo... y no estoy diciendo que yo esté exento por no ser ingeniero.

  12. Feb 2016
    1. When pursuing the Early Adopters, don't spend time putting in features that only the Conservatives care about.

      Algo así me pasó con la facilidad de instalación. El data week mostró ser una mejor manera de detectar las características realmente importantes enfocarme en ellas, por ejemplo las galerías de visualización y raspado de datos, mientras que la instalación era asistida en persona durante el evento.

    2. So you have to treat them like they are very special.  Give them everything they want, almost as if they were ordering a custom application.  You may have to implement special features just for them.  You may have to give them substantial discounts.  You should visit their site and meet them in person.  You may have to install your product for them. 

      Desde esta perspectiva de "mercadeo", esto ha venido pasando con grafoscopio, en alguna medida, aunque estamos en la fase de adoptadores tempranos. Esta visualización fue hecha con un "esfuerzo extra" para una "pragmatista en sufrimiento" que no estaba interesada en Smalltalk, pero si en las visualizaciones. Creo que allí hay una población grande de personas que podrían estar interesados en grafoscopio y eventualmente en aprender a programarlo y extenderlo.

    1. But mature languages can't change easily if at all. This situation is described in theory of frozen evolution. Basically the evolution of language is similar of the evolution of a new specie. Evolution happens in short burst when the new language(specie) is created. In this period language design is plastic, there are few if any users, little amount of code and libraries and the community consists of enthusiasts. This short period of plasticity is fallowed by a long period of stability. The evolution of the language is frozen. There are few tweaks here and there but nothing radical. And nobody , not even the original creator could change that.
    2. In order to successfully cross the chasm you need a pragmatist in pain.

      Lo sería yo con la visualización de datos y las herramientas amoldables? Quizás no, pues esos dominios ya han sido abordados antes, aunque no combinados de este modo (entonces quizás sí :-P)

    1. Conclusion: if you're in a market with a chicken and egg problem, you better have a backwards-compatibility answer that dissolves the problem, or it's going to take you a loooong time to get going (like, forever).

      La otra posibilidad es entrar a "mercados" emergentes donde si bien debe haber compatibilidad con el pasado, la principal inquietud es explorar/prototipar el futuro.

    2. That bears mentioning again. WordStar was ported to DOS by changing one single byte in the code.  Let that sink in.

      Esto ya no importa hoy en día. Con las capacidades de hardware actuales, un sistema basado en grafoscopio podría correr en Android, Windows, Unix (con sus variantes Mac y Gnu/Linux) o un dispositivo como la rasberry pi, sin cambiar un sólo bit. La dificultad está en movilizar una metáfora nueva para escribir y una nueva manera de pensar frente a la computación.

    1. What makes this more difficult to resolve is that GitHub is — surprise! — not open source. GitHub is closed source, meaning that only GitHub staff is able to make improvements to its platform.The irony of using a proprietary tool to manage open source projects, much like BitKeeper and Linux, has not been lost on everyone. Some developers refuse to put their code on GitHub to retain their independence. Linus Torvalds, the creator of Git himself, refuses to accept pull requests (code changes) from GitHub.

      That's why I have advocated tools like Fossil to other members of our Hackerspace and other communities like Pharo or decentralized options to Mozilla Science (without much acceptation in the communities or even any reaction from Mozilla Science).

      Going with the de facto and popular defaults (without caring about freedom or diversity) seems the position of open source/science communities and even digital activist, which contrast sharply with their discourse for the building of tools/data/politics, but seems invisible in the building of community/metadata/metapolitics.

      The kind of disempowerment these communities are trying to fight, is the one they're suffering with GitHub, like showed here: https://hypothes.is/a/AVKjLddpvTW_3w8LyrU-

      So there is a tension between the convenience and wider awareness/participation of centralized privative platforms that is wanted by these open/activist communities and a growth in the (over)use of the commons that is bigger that the growth of its sustainability/ethos, as shown here: https://hypothes.is/a/AVKjfsTRvTW_3w8LyrqI . Sacrificing growth/convenience by choosing simpler and more coherent infrastructures aligned with the commons and its ethos seems a sensible approach then.

    2. But it comes with new challenges: how to actually manage demand and workflows, how to encourage contributions, and how to build antifragile ecosystems.

      This is a key issue. My research is about the relationship of mutual modification between communities and digital artifacts to bootstrap empowering dynamics.

      The question regarding participation could be addressed by making an infrastructural transposition (putting what is in the background in the foreground as suggested by Susan Leigh Star). This has been, in a sense the approach of this article, making visible what is behind infrastructures like LAMP, GitHub or StackExchange and has also been the approach of my comments. Of course there are things beyond infrastructure, but the way the infrastructures determine communities and the change that communities can made or not on them could be a key to antifragile, that is traversed by critical pedagogy, community and cognition. How can we change the artifacts that change us is a questions related with antifragile. This is the question of my research (in the context of a Global South hackerspace), but I never connected it with antifragile until reading this text.

    3. As a result, while plenty of amateur developers use open source projects, those people aren’t interested in, or capable of, seriously giving back. They might be able to contribute a minor bug or fix, but the heavy lifting is still left to the veterans.

      I'm starting to feel this even with my new project, grafoscopio. The burden of development is now on core functionality that will make the project easier to use and adapt for newcomers, but still there is a question about how many of them will worry or be enabled to work on improving this core functionality or help in some way with its maintenance.

    4. Experienced maintainers have felt the burden. Today, open source looks less like a two-way street, and more like free products that nobody pays for, but that still require serious hours to maintain.This is not so different from what happened to newspapers or music, except that nearly all the world’s software is riding on open source.
    5. Now developers had all the tools they needed. In the 1980s, they had to use a scattered combination of IRC, mailing lists, forums, and version control systems.By 2010, they had Git for version control, GitHub to collaborate, and Stack Overflow to ask and answer questions.

      Este párrafo muestra una transición de lo distribuido de la Internet a de los 80's lo centralizado de la Internet actual (2010~2015) y como esta tendencia no sólo ocurrió en el mundo de la web en general, sino del desarrollo de software (de hecho mediante la incorporación de experiencias e interfaces web centralizadas, sobre infraestructuras no web distribuidas).

    1. Almost all the artifacts that we value as a society were made by or at the order of men. But behind every one is an invisible infrastructure of labor—primarily caregiving, in its various aspects—that is mostly performed by women.

      The main issue here is the visible versus the invisible work. Making in the "makers" movement sense is related with making the visible stuff, usually the hardware/software related one with a strong formal correlate (because stuff takes the form of programmed code or is the result of programming code, i.e 3D printing), while "soft" informal stuff, like the day to day issues of logistics about places and doings is invisible.

      The question in not solved simply by making the invisible visible, as Susan Leigh Star has pointed out (in the case of nursing, for example). It's also about leaving the invisible to be agent of important stuff without being trapped by the formalism of the visible. To give the visible and the invisible the proper weight without only trying one to become the other.