I'm spending some time cleaning my blog these days. I have about 3,000 posts in this thing, and many of the older ones have dead links and broken (or ugly) layouts. So, some shaping up is in order. Fixing (well, deleting, actually) a million broken links will only encourage me to link a whole lot less, too.

I also got rid of all the graphics in the right nav and shortened it substantially. It was just becoming a mess of branding confusion with pointers everywhere. So, I deleted ruthlessly and tried to focus on my core projects and some general interest links that are related. In terms of graphics, I'll go with two brands only: OpenSolaris since that's what I do every day and Oracle since they pay me to do it. It's much simpler that way. You know where I work and what I do. That's it. Also gone are all the template rules and/or boxes, most of which were created with the use of different colors. It's just clean now. White. I got sick of the yellow-ish brown color of the default template, which I've been using for about three years now. If I want to play around with a different feel here and there, I can now change the color of the entire face of the page easily with just one adjustment.

It's not quite spring, but close enough. More to do but this is the direction.

> Read More... | Digg This!

How could I not read an article in USA Today with a headline like this? Psychologists: Propaganda works better than you think.

It's true, of course. I find propaganda is a remarkably effective tool, and it's far more sophisticated in democracies than it is in totalitarian societies (see Chomsky here and here and a million other places, and also see David Barstow's reports on the media and the Pentagon -- video, article, article -- for a well-known and recent example). But what I found most interesting in the USA Today piece was the assertion that accurate information may not counteract propaganda very well and actually could help transmit it. If that's true, would it make sense to be more assertive in communications to drive the agenda and then to ignore critics (or at least the vicious and extreme ones)? I suppose this strategy wouldn't necessarily work in all cases, and there are certainly some very effective techniques to deposition attackers. But just tossing out good information in a attempt to thwart the bad stuff may not be a good use of time. Having the good information well documented so you can rapidly point to it for those interested is required, of course, but it's the never-ending iterative arguing that I think I'm done with. I've been trying this for about a year now, and I find it more effective than my earlier pattern of responding to everything in an attempt to change minds. I gave up. Plus, it's not as exhausting.

Propaganda fascinates me. I keep track at this tag: http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/tags/propaganda

> Read More... | Digg This!

Been on the moon lately? Out of touch? No problem. You can catch up on everything today at 9 a.m. California Pacific time when Oracle articulates the new strategy of Oracle+Sun. Finally, after all these many months after the acquisition was announced, we can get some real information to cut through the garbage spin and rumor mongering out there. There`s lots of news breaking now on the eve of the event, but at lest some of these articles have well-known sources in a position to know something and who are unafraid to be on the record. Refreshing. Anyway, I suppose my work life will be changing shortly. Should be interesting to see what happens in a few hours. Tune in ...

Webcast. Release.

> Read More... | Digg This!

McNealy's bittersweet memo bids good-bye to Sun: "Scott McNealy, the smack-talking co-founder and long-running leader of Sun Microsystems, has bid adieu to his company in a memo that mixes nostalgia with a rallying cry for employees about to become part of Oracle. The memo, sent Tuesday under the subject line 'Thanks for a great 28 years,' has more genuine emotion than you'll see in a year's worth of official communications from most corporate leaders." -- Stephen Shankland, DeepTech, Cnet News.

I think those of us who have worked with Scott or interacted with him in any way would agree. It's something you feel and you feel it right away.

> Read More... | Digg This!

There is good reason why extremism thrives in American political discourse. It works. It really is that simple. Actually, it`s a remarkably effective rhetorical technique and has been so since the founding of the republic. Go back and read the early political debates -- or just take a good U.S. history class -- and you quickly learn that pretty much nothing has changed in hundreds of years of politicians bashing each other in public arenas. Never mind the political party. That`s always been irrelevant when it comes to this behavior. American politicians intentionally take serious issues -- freedom, war, health, money -- right to the edge. Why? To scare people. And, since they have real power over our lives, it works. We get scared. And then we don`t question too deeply. And if we do question, we really don`t do very much about it, right? Instead, over time we become passive and compliant.

The reason I think this way -- it`s just a gut observation, that`s all -- is that if you take away someone`s power to control your life then their propaganda sounds much less threatening. Oftentimes, they just sound silly. Their lack of credibility becomes obvious, and they are much more easily ignored. You can see distinctions in communications strategies when you look at other fields outside of the political/media complex. Many companies, for instance, have found that attacking competitors in public is counterproductive. Customers see right through it, and the practice becomes a demonstration of poor marketing. Also, when you build community, especially across language and cultural barriers, extremist language can easily and rapidly undermine your reputation. Now, the term community has many practical definitions, but in general it implies a distribution of power and leadership, not a centralization. In communities, people tend to be valued for what they do, not what they say. You can see this in many scientific and technical communities. I see it in all of the communities in which I participate. But I don`t see this concept expressed at all in politics. Do you?

This all came to mind tonight after I scanned this article -- The pros and cons of hissy fits. It`s a fun read.

> Read More... | Digg This!

An Operating System for the Mind, Stephen Downes. I tend to agree with Downes in this piece how to think about education in the 21st Century. He is articulating a fresh approach to the "skills" vs "core knowledge" debate and it seems empowering and flexible. My complaint with the common core view of the world is that although I value a Liberal Arts education to a certain degree I find it expensive, poorly delivered, and lacking in practical skills to earn a living. At the other extreme I am critical of the facts/skills-only crew who pay lip service to a more common base of knowledge from which to build and grow and diversify (and enjoy). Both views lock you into one or another paradigm, and there seems to be a political agenda underlying both as well. Instead, the operating system view from Downes seems to be a paradigm breaker. I like it. He redefines facts themselves and offers a way of engaging facts to learn and act. It gives you the perspective you need to jump paradigms when you need to -- which is getting more and more often these days since everything is changing so fast out there. Give the Downes post a read. It`s a tad on the long and complex side but it`s well worth it.

> Read More... | Digg This!

I'm reviewing Chapter 6 of Producing Open Source Software by Karl Fogel. It's an excellent read. It covers communication on open source projects and how to interact in the most efficient and professional way possible. Also excellent is How Open Source Projects Survive Poisonous People by Ben-Collins Sussman and Brian Fitzpatrick (slides). I view this video every few months to keep sane. I've gotten much better with my online communications in recent years in that I don't get bogged down in flames or respond to attacks anymore, which only leads to being attacked even more. I used to try and respond to everything in an effort to shape a thread or calm people down or deflect unwanted advances. But that's just not realistic. More bluntly, it's a waste of time. And it only distracts you from taking advantage of all the interesting opportunities out there. Instead, I'm trying to focus my communications by engaging more with people who are respectful and open to my efforts. I am trying to protect my most important resource: my attention. It's going good.

> Read More... | Digg This!

When you screw up, just apologize and fix the problem. Fast. That`s what Katharine Weymouth, the publisher of the Washington Post, did today. After an initial misfire, she apologized and took full responsibility for her paper`s offer to sell access to political contacts and Post reporters at private events. This was an obvious marketing and communications mistake that would have compromised the credibility of her company`s most valuable asset -- the newsroom. Hey, everyone`s human. But the apology was necessary, and the taking of responsibility at the top is rare and refreshing. It will be interesting to see the media digest this issue since the field has been under significant pressure in recent years. More background here and here.

Lesson: apologize and fix it fast. And remember, credibility is earned from the bottom up, not the top down.

> Read More... | Digg This!

Communications all about building relationships, and that`s always a two way street (or if you are in the community business, a multi-way street). Every wonder what a relationship with Rahm is like. Check out Ring, ring, it's Rahm:

NBC?s Chuck Todd calls the Emanuel relationship ?no-nonsense.?

?He?s always trying to extract as much information as he?s trying to give,? Todd says.

But the conversations with Emanuel ?can be as little as 30 seconds,? Paul Begala, the CNN commentator and longtime Emanuel friend says. ?He calls, drops a few F-bombs, makes his point and hangs up.?

The shock value of his delivery is important (he can do that because he`s special and powerful and he`s right hand man of the president), but even more so is the bit about the information extraction. Information has to flow both ways to demonstrate the value of the relationship.

> Read More... | Digg This!

When I was in San Francisco a few weeks ago, I picked The 48 Laws of Power and The 33 Strategies of War by Robert Greene. If you love history and the study of how things really get done, check these books out. I can`t put them down. I can see how Greene`s stuff would come handy while defending yourself against the packs of wild dogs running around out there. Some very nice tips in these books. Greene seems like an interesting character, too. Study hard. I am.

> Read More... | Digg This!

Some Obama Enemies Are Made Totally of Straw -- New York Times

?Here?s the trick: Take your opponent?s argument to a ridiculous extreme, and then attack the extremists,? said William Safire, the former presidential speechwriter who writes the ?On Language? column for The New York Times Magazine. ?That leaves the opponent to sputter defensively, ?But I never said that.? ?

The telltale indicators that a straw man trick is on the way are the introductory words ?there are those who say? or ?some say.?

?In strawmanese, you never specify who ?those who? are,? Mr. Safire said. ?They are the hollow scarecrows you set up to knock down.?

This is such a common rhetorical technique. It has been used for thousands of years, and virtually everyone who talks in front of audiences uses it to one degree or another -- especially your friendly neighborhood politician.

There`s not much you can do when some pol says these silly things because they are generally pretty well protected and rarely have to justify their statements. But when regular people talk like this in meetings or when you are being lectured at by someone standing on a soapbox within arm`s reach, you can actually protect yourself from this verbal manipulation without leaving yourself vulnerable. Here`s how: just ask some painfully obvious question -- who says? where? when? Etc. Most people using the straw man technique will not be able to answer the question to any level of detail, so the more detail you ask for the more you can undermine the statement. Ask if those so-called "those who say" sources are enough to justify the generalizations. They won`t like this questioning at all, by the way, so ask nicely. There`s no need to be hostile, and you don`t want to get in over your head. The questioning alone is generally enough to get your point across.

So, as speakers create and attack straw man extremes at the edges, you can calmly drive right up the middle and ask for the details. Try it. It`s fun. This little counterattack works great on rumors, too.

More here.

> Read More... | Digg This!

Linda tells us that BSC is 5 today. That`s amazing. I had no idea. I totally lost track. Well, the truth is I can`t remember my own birthday let alone anyone else`s, so no one should be surprised. I think I take BSC for granted now. It`s just there. It just works. But I shouldn`t take it for granted at all. The application transformed my work life and enabled me to communicate with people all over the world. For that I am most grateful. We even launched OpenSolaris on BSC, and at the time that was a bold and controversial move for Sun -- and it caused a few arguments as I recall as well. Back then many of us were new to blogging and communicating in the open, but BSC provided an excellent platform for those involved in OpenSolaris to tell their stories. Directly. No filters.

My first post was a on the 30th of April 2004, just a couple of days after the so-called opening. Initially, I didn`t even know the damn thing was turned on. I followed Danese into a conference room one day and it turned out to be some blogging meeting. I heard rumors but didn`t know anything. I just sat down. I met Tim Bray for the first time in that meeting. Simon was there. Will. And some others but I can`t remember everyone. Half way though, I leaned over and looked at Will`s laptop and he was poking around on BSC. I looked at the URL and said something like "Is that thing on? That`s outside? You didn`t tell anyone?" And he responded (casually, of course) with something like "Yah, it`s live. I just turned it on." You have to realize how revolutionary that "just turning it on" bit was for Sun five years ago. But that`s pretty much what they did. People found out soon enough, though, eh?

Anyway, Linda Skrocki has been one of the leaders of the BSC effort, and many of the founding members of the platform are still around and still helping guide us all. BSC helped liberate many of the voices we so freely read today. I don`t think OpenSolaris would have been quite the same without BSC. I wouldn`t either, actually. I`d be getting a lot more sleep. Like now. It`s 2:30 in the morning and where am I? On BSC.


> Read More... | Digg This!

The image below is an advertisement for an English school here in Japan. I shot it on a train a few weeks ago in Tokyo. I was struck by the piercing, obnoxious, pompous looks from those western dudes staring at, presumably, a Japanese person in some mythical meeting someplace. Nothing like scaring the hell out of someone to prompt them to take a class, eh? My goodness. Look at those guys.

Anyway, the text actually expresses an important concept, and it goes something like this: when you don`t agree with something while talking to these guys, you`ll be asked why you don`t agree, you`ll be expected to state your opinion, and, probably, you`ll have to defend that opinion. So, if that dynamic is a problem, many people just say yes and go along with the crowd in the meeting. I know many Japanese people do this in international meetings because expressing contrary opinions is done quite differently in English and Japanese. Westerners (Americans specifically) tend to be direct and Japanese tend to be indirect. But it goes beyond preference. Those styles are hard coded right into the structures of the languages themselves, and they are expressed in the cultures as well. There are exceptions both ways, of course, but the tendencies are pervasive and obvious, and a great deal of confusion can occur as a result. When communicating across languages, go out of your way to make sure your ideas resonate in the other language. Many times, they don`t. And you`ll miss that rather inconvenient fact if the other person is just saying yes. Yes doesn`t always mean yes, right? And there are a hundred different ways of saying no, right?

But here`s the kicker for me: this issue is also a problem within English; it`s not just a problem when communicating across English and Japanese. Many times native English speakers just say yes when confronted with aggressive people like the dudes in the image below. I mean, really, why would anyone want to talk to these guys? Especially outnumbered four on one. I think there are probably just as many communication problems stemming from command and control types within a language as there are resulting from distinctions in communication styles across languages. What always gets me, though, is why do these guys have meetings in the first place? They obviously don`t want other opinions. So, they deserve the yes they get -- and the problems resulting from that yes.

This is why it`s a pleasure working on teams that value open communication, and working for leaders who use communication to discover ideas and implement ideas. Human communication is an imperfect art. You have to use it as a tool to iterate so understanding emerges over time. Teams that don`t value this painfully simple concept aren`t worth your time no matter what language you speak.

> Read More... | Digg This!

It was interesting to hear the new president and vice president react to the $20 billion in bonuses this week. Obama said the bonuses were "shameful" but Biden spoke more directly and said he`d like to "throw these guys in the brig." Now there`s an image for ya, eh? Anyway, it was a fascinating distinction in rhetoric from two guys who basically agree on things but who also express themselves quite differently. See two articles here: NY Times and SF Gate.


> Read More... | Digg This!

If you love language and the quirks of the English language you may have run into Steven Pinker. The guy is brilliant. His talks are complex at times but quite humorous as well. Check out his lecture at Google from a couple of years ago -- Authors@Google: Steven Pinker. It`s typical Pinker. But the bit between the 20:32 - 23:00 minute mark is just hysterical. Adults only, please, the language is strong. And the government reaction is, well, classic. And that`s what makes it jaw dropping funny. The adverb closing by Pinker is precious, too. Also interesting are the linguistic and psychological reasons explaining all this, which Pinker articulates in great detail. Good stuff.


> Read More... | Digg This!