| |
CamilleFrancoisSecondPaper 4 - 17 Apr 2013 - Main.CamilleFrancois
|
|
META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
| | There's too much about me here for my taste. It would be better without me. I think it is also desirable to consider an alternate organization, in which the map itself, rather than your travels through it, is the subject of description. I'm not sure that would be better: the infusion of your personality here is refreshing, not to be lost lightly. But the coherence of the description is also an important end to serve.
| |
> > | --> Thank you a lot for the precious feedback. There is indeed a problem of organization, maybe it is because I attempted to merge different topics in one short piece:
- As you encouraged me to write from my own point of view, I wrote the piece as a journey through the map, thinking it would help understand how I came to these conclusions. It might be confusing rather than helpful so I will edit the angle to leave the personal story out of this (why trying to keep a personal touch).
- It is of course a piece about the map, although I am still unsure how helpful that concept is. I should take a real stab (in an other piece) at trying to define it more precisely and see if that leads me to anything useful.
- It is also a piece about the idea that syllabus is source code too. Maybe this actually is the central point of the piece: the challenges that were successfully tackled, the self-referencial syllabi, the 4 freedoms of free software applied to syllabus construction, the West Point syllabus, etc.
- It is a piece on this idea of a community that has set a goal for itself. There are many questions behind this idea, and the main one is: can we really talk about one community? Through the way you adress these issues and when reading manifestos the answer seem to be yes, but many still oppose this idea. If it is a community, how is it defined? By its goal only, as I suggested, or is that reductive? This is only very briefly addressed in the piece through the questions behind who are the inclusive "we" in the manifestos, and through the fact that people refer to "our goal", "our fight".
- Finally, this could be a piece about the Singularity. I was about to write a final paragraph about how that led to the Singularity movement but I ran out of space - maybe the organization seem odd because it was leading there? I had thought that our movement wasn't so concerned about the Singularity because they didn't seem that serious - I am now thinking that maybe the main reason why the Singularity isn't high up on the radar is that they seem to share the same source code than us. I should further explore this. | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors. All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| |