Continuing the discussion on Software Craftsmanship

Conversation has continued in the comments, and I think it's going in the right direction. But then Anthony takes offense to the fact that I call out to Jason on my blog.

I'm engaging the conversation through my blog because not everyone is on twitter, and not everyone is on mailing lists. I can safely say that the majority of the regulars in London are not even subscribed to any mailing list. By bringing the conversation outside of the echo chamber silos that exist in mailing lists and twitter, we get more point of views and that helps me understand things better.

Which was also a reason for posting. I genuinely dont get it. It's either just a manifesto showing intent, or it's much more and that much more I've yet to hear about.

I raised two things in my post: the first on the fundamentals of craftsmanship, the second on community involvement. On the former, the discussion has started and Cory has raised points that make very much sense to me. I'll be bringing more of that conversation on the craftsmanship mailing list, and see what happens there.

The second fundamental is the one of community engagement. I called on Jason on my blog because I assumed he was involved in the Software Craftsmanship movement, having organized a conference bearing the name, and both being presented together on the wikipedia page mentioned in a recent message on the craftsmanship mailing list.

From that assumption, I made an additional one: if you put your time in organizing a conference about something, you want to see this something go forward and you go out there to discuss what it is and why it's important.

And I made a final assumption: any new community grows by having ties with existing one. You embrace and extend. Otherwise communities grow in a silo.

On the first assumption, apparently the only relationship is the book and the wikipedia page, and Jason has said he was not in the job of convincing me or anyone else, he was just a signatory supporting them (Did I understand it correctly this time?).

By extension the second assumption also collapses and someone else may have to come and take up on that offer to come and talk software craftmanship at one of our meetings. And the third assumption is my own opinion on community building, still stands but has no value now that the other two collapsed.

The thing is, with Jason proposing a regular meeting around the topic of Software Craftmanship, and with the focus the Beers has had so far, our event would become completely redundant and unnecessary. And I'd be quite glad if that happened But if no one comes and engage us, and if my attemps at engaging fail, it's just not going to happen.

So, Anthony... I really don't engage your brother for the sake of it, I engage him beacuse I assumed his involvement was more than it was, and because my few messages to him on twitter have either received no response or responses that were not educational. By blogging it, Jason has responded, points have been cleared and we can move forward in the conversation. So overall I know more now than I did then.

And finally, I haven't belittled the conference in any way. I'm sure it was a very successful one, and people seemed happy enough blogging about it. But I am very surprised it hasn't been broadcasted much in my neck of the wood, even though one of the guys helping organize (Gojko) is *definitly* in my neck of the wood. Why? I'm not sure. But if the intent is to grow and learn, then there could've been more outreach to existing communities.

I don't think I have trolled or attacked anyone personally. I'm just profoundly confused by the why, and the apparent disinterest in involving and engaging existing technical communities.

And I could've answered that on your blog, Anthony, if the comments were not disabled. But at least that'll clear-up my personal rules of engagement when it comes to communities, bloggers and the twitteristas.