ESCAPE VELOCITY

1 - Henning, to be clear, are you saying that I buy everything IBM just because it's IBM? Or that I'm not publically critical of IBM?

2 - I can only comment on what I hear and read. If you prefer to work behind the scenes you are probably doing valuable work but you are at risk that ouside people do not recognise it. I do not want people to speak bad about something just because bad news sell better.
Volker cannot do such a bad job otherwise I am not sure why Mike Rhodin and others would still give him an interview? In the majority of his posts he is quoting others anyway. It is quite hard to get a quotable statement from Volker although one might guess his intention from the postings.

3 - At least removing comments seems to be an excellent way to annoy someone.
Volker is one of the few people that do not buy everything IBM does just because it is from IBM.

4 - @20 Henning - there are so many people "that do not buy everything IBM does just because it is from IBM". Nathan and I have given some very tough and difficult feedback to the Notes 8 team. You just can not see it because it is in a controlled format. Does that make it any less valuable? Are Nathan and I doing a disservice by not making that available in a public forum (and let us not muddy the water with the issue of NDAs preventing us from doing just that)? I do not think so ... I think it is a positive thing. Posting feedback where you attack in a public format does not always get the reaction you want.

5 - Paul, thanks for stopping by. Consider me jealous of the weekend you must have had.

Volker was hardly the only one taking IBM to task with the Workplace effort. I know I was pretty vocal about not being a fan of that plan, particularly of the obviously-cannibalistic Workplace Messaging. I could dig out some reference points if the world's forgotton that I was a loudmouth even before I had a blog. *grin*

Yeah, I'll agree vowe.net has drawn some nice attention to ILUG. So we can chalk that up as another useful contribution from Volker. I must miss all the other stuff that's behind the scenes.

Perhaps it is just cultural thing that keeps me from finding those "tongue-in-cheek" posts particularly amusing. They read like snide attacks to me. Particularly in light of the fact that John's first reply to that series was deleted, and it was only after his second sat there all night that Volker allowed it to remain.

Anyway, this horse is pretty well flogged. Sometimes differences are just differences. I've just always been particularly put off by hypocrisy.

Now I need to get back to my next blog.

6 - Hey Nathan.

Considering the weekend that is in it... I have been off, em... socialising and offline for the most part. I read yours, Johns, and Volkers site frequently and always find myself respecting your technical abilities and enthusiasm.

I have always considered Volker to be the Devils' Advocate in relation to Lotus Notes and the community that surrounds it nowadays. He does not need work with Lotus products to support him, but has an interest in it anyway. He can afford to be more critical then many of us, but not in the way that we always are (i.e. technically). He does a *lot* for the Lotus community, in front and behind the scenes guys. Its quite obvious he has helped me with the ILUG event, over the past years. That is simply because he thought it was a good idea, and told me he would like to help. The "doesnotworkplace" comment is a good example of Volker. He was right. Long before other people were saying it, he was correct in his future of Workplace (i.e. dropped and code integrated to Websphere Portal). He could say it back then, when many others may have thought it (myself included) and said nothing, leaving himself open to arguments from others.

Possibly there are times when some posts are misinterpreted , and seen as malicious, when in fact they are "tounge in cheek". I personally laughed out loud when I read the parody on John's "rules" post. Could it be a culture thing? I dunno. Maybe Im just a dumb "paddy".

In relation to comment control, hell I have deleted comments and even tweaked a few on my site. “Ed Fisher” springs to mind. And some of the comments I have seen about Volker and others over the past 12 months have been plain childish (not here Nathan). I’m not posting here for an argument with guys I really respect technically, and usually steer clear of these things, but vowe is a “good mother”. He has criticized me and taken the p1ss out of me in the past, but usually with very good cause.

Anyways… hoping not to be flamed…. Peace..

7 - @23 - *giggling*

Now THAT is an odd mental picture...

8 - hi

I'm puzzled by the whole thing. I read through the so-called rules. I don't see anything there that says "IBM doesn't want negative feedback" so why did the original poster on Ed's site think it does?
They specifically set up the forums so people could post about the problems they have encountered. There's a suggestion option on the form (which implies they want to know how to do things better even if it can't be coded at the .0 release) so why are we having this debate now? Volker seems to have picked up on a comment by one person who seems to have misinterpreted what is being asked of us. Let's get back to the important stuff.





Let's get back to testing

9 - I am saying that (too) many do that. Again, I am not saying that people should criticize IBM (especially if they are business partners) but I am happy that there are sites like vowe.net that at least have a critical look at what IBM is doing (or not doing). It just keeps me from gettings nuts sometimes. You asked why he is relevant and I tried to answer that (from my opinion).
If your question would be what is wrong with vowe.net, I would have something to say too but that was not the question.

10 - Ed didn't say that the rules are counter-productive. He said that if negative feedback is suppressed, then the beta is doomed. Read through John's responses in the beta forum. Is that your interpretation of his replies? That they suppress?

In any event, my problem here is not with the concept that feedback supression hurts the testing cycle. Of course it does. My problem is that this particular blogger (and it's a blog, no matter how much he denies it) has himself a long history of suppressing negative feedback in the form of deleting comments. It's a case of hypocrisy worthy of Vowe's friends in the Bush administration.

And Rob, my "A-list" question is: who should be getting your traffic? When was the last time you read something useful to your job at vowe.net? Or is reading his site just a lifestyle choice?

11 - I neither know nor particularly care what caused the feud between you and Volker (and it may well be that it is all his fault - though usually these things have two sides). But I agree with him about the Notes 8 beta and this idea of "rules" limiting what sort of feedback we should give. The original post John made was fine, I guess, though I personally didn't care for it. Referring people to it in the Forum and the blogs whenever anyone posts something that crosses what John considers to be the line is a bit too much, though, isn't it?

Yes, this is a beta. But it is now a public beta, and the entire point of a public beta is to gather feedback. All feedback, most especially including the negative sort. If IBM doesn't need to hear our complaints, our problems, our rants, then why did they ask us to try out the software?

I'm quite sure John's intent was not to stifle feedback, because that would defeat all the effort he puts into the beta himself. But that was the result. Ans it may be worth noting that one of those "inside channels" you mentioned also agrees that the rules are counterproductive. See comment 14 from Mr Brill: { Link }

Oh, and regarding what makes one an "A-list" blogger? It's traffic. You know that, of course. I think your argument would be more effective if you acknowledged that the term "A-lister" doesn't have anything to do with moral superiority or community involvement. Maybe it *should* - that's a post I think you could write very effectively - but it doesn't, in the real world or the blogosphere.

12 - Rob - I was never trying to surpress negative feedback. I was just trying to get some of the whining out of the way so that good feedback, positive or negative, was what IBM gathered. If someone doesn't like something, they should by all means post it. But if someone takes the public beta and moves PRODUCTION servers and clients and has problems, whose fault is that?

One of the things that makes the Notes online community great is that we give people a swift kick in the ass when they need it. I would have LOVED to have more discussion around my blog entry. People hate it, great. Post away. But for someone to attack me and have ZERO, NADA, NO feedback on the beta (and in my memory has not posting anything positive about IBM's ND* effort in over a year) and then critise my efforts is out of control. Oh, I forgot ... Volker doesn't use Notes ...

If someone doesn't like the way I do things or things I say, I welcome feedback. Nathan smacks me around all the time. I sometimes get into corporate-mindset mode and he takes me to task. I have a blog and an email address and am on IM. Let me know. I have never deleted comments or stifiled communication directly.

13 - @5 - If there's that much value in unfiltered feedback, let's hope that Volker takes your points to heart and stops deleting comments from his blog that are in any way critical of his posts.

After all, it's only the FOOLISH consistency that's a hobgoblin.

14 - @2 Yes, Nathan, it's my interpretation (and obviously that of at least a couple of others) that both the replies in the forum and the post about "the rules" have the effect of suppressing feedback. I *know* that wasn't the intent. I also know that none of the specific words John used in the post were "don't post feedback if..." - but the overall tone of the post is to not bother posting certain types of feedback.

@4 I know, John. As I said above I was always perfectly sure that you didn't want to suppress feedback of any kind. But it didn't read that way, and neither did your references to it as one-line responses to comments in the forum.

Also, I would argue that even the whining is useful feedback. The sheer quantity of it will tell IBM something. They need to hear about everything, even the things that your rules disallow. Even if a feature won't make it into 8.0, aren't they already finalizing feature lists for 8.01? And if the beta really does cause something catastrophic in somebody's production domain, do you think IBM would prefer not to hear about it? That's not to say they'll be able to, or would choose to, do much about it, of course. But I'm pretty sure they'd be interested in the data point.

Anyway, that's my opinion. I could very well be wrong. Happens ALL the time. It hasn't happened yet today, so I'm probably due for a whopper.

Oh, and I get useful information from vowe.net all the time. Some of it is even work-related. I reserve my lifestyle choices for the animals back on Pappy's farm...

15 - @6 - Rob, thanks for the feedback. I wish people would have responded to the post if they had an issue with it. Or it read different than the intent. Then we could have dealt with it and made changes.

I am more than willing to admit when I make mistakes. I will even correct them. But I will not sit back and be attacked by someone who is providing no value to the Public Beta and attacking those that are spending their free time to help IBM and others. And Nathan is right ... since when is it acceptable to attack someone about allowing all feedback when you go out of your way to delete feedback on your own site that you just do not like. That is not journalism. That is not value. I would call that tabloid.

16 - I'd say we're done now. Especially after #26.

17 - People still read vowe.net? I stopped after his Sonos shilling and anti-American jealously hatred got to a peak. He also makes every effort to belittle Ed Brill's efforts, though for some reason people like Ed and this character Ben feel they earn something being on his "good list".

I can't see the attraction, except that it is like the Paris Hilton comment. It is fun to watch him be a wank - he is basically the exact troll that he so often likes to describe that he dislikes.

18 - @Nathan - The comment above this is a pretty good example of the childish ones I have seen in the past.

@26. yes - many people read vowe.net.

19 - I had no idea two sentences would cause such a tempest in a teacup { Link } . It's really rather silly since it was a simple misunderstanding { Link } . I wonder if a correction will make the front page?

I, too, have had comments deleted from Volker's site, and he has even deleted his own comments to my responses before deleting my response. It is rather rich that a self-avowed revisionist would cry foul over a *perceived* effort to suppress unwanted feedback. I stopped reading his blog after I read this on Kathy Sierra's: { Link } . Now I only go there when it's linked from somewhere else. (Or someone sends me an angry indignant e-mail.)

@John - Like I said on Ed's blog, I have no problem with what you said, and I applaud your efforts at forestalling the same repeated questions. I think you crossed the line when you started referencing "the rules" in your blog and forum responses, which makes you look like the self-appointed forum police.

@Rob - You're not alone, but I also know you well enough to know you're not so easily cowed. I doubt if anything John or anyone else said could prevent you from giving the feedback you felt like sharing.

20 - @Ben - If Volker had adopted the principals Kathy is promoting he wouldn't have engaged in this public passive-aggressive assault on John. How is singling John out, but not saying it's John, in any way positive? The whole thing is just childish, and I'm mortified that I got dragged in even marginally.

21 - @12 John. Work it out: if your comments are allowed on vowe.net, you're not banned are you?

As for likening the practices underpinning a personal website with those of big government... come on John, get some perspective.

22 - @9 - But Ben, I have chosen not to participate in Volker's blog. He dragged me into it without asking!

23 - @11 Ben, if that were true, why have my comments been allowed on his site this past week? Sorry, but I do not buy it. He is censoring and shaping the truth just like he accusses the Bush administration of doing. You either allow no comments, just trackbacks like many sites or you only delete comments that are spam or so vile (language, attacks, etc) they should not be present. Anything else is trying to shape the conversation without allowing all of the viewpoints to participate.

24 - As I have just posted on John's blog, I tend to agree with Volker on this. I think that posting "the rules" and later referring to them from the public forum was a mistake. You can go to see my response on John's blog if you are interested in the details.

As for Volker, whether or not he is a hypocrite is hardly the question. A public beta for a widely used product requires feedback that a private, no matter how A-list, blog does not. I don't think much of deleting comments, but that is Volker's choice, and he is fairly up-front about it. The odd thing about blogs is that they can all have different rules, and the choice to participate or not is up to others. I have taken people to task before for not publishing comments on their blogs, but only when they had explicit policies inviting comment. I wish that Volker would revise his policy, but if I post on his blog, I do so knowing that if he chooses to be offended, he will remove the comment. C'est la vie.

25 - OK, I do this somewhat reluctantly, but FWIW, this is my take on things. And yes, I will state up-front that (a) I like to think I'm a good friend of Volker's, (b) he has done me a lot of favours and (c) I have worked with him. So, all that said, here goes :

(1) Re comment #5, I'm not sure I understand. How does the commentary and feedback on a site like Volker's compare with a need for structured, constructive feedback about a commercial product like Notes 8?

(2) With regards charges of persistent "comment deletion", I think everyone's over-blowing the issue here, not to mention being plumb wrong about the circumstances:

Rightly or wrongly, Volker has decided that he doesn't want feedback on his site from some people. Those people are blocked, pure and simple. It's not a question of deleting comments [I]on the basis of their content[/I], it's simply that the content doesn't get that far.

It seems to me that in taking the action that he has, Volker has adopted the principals that Kathy espouses (excellent link BTW Charles), so maybe we should too.

In the past I too have been asked to reign in some of my comments on Volker's site (and indeed, on other sites). As a courtesy to the site owner in question, I have done so. If I hadn't, then all those individuals reserved the right to ban me (in fact, one did anyway).

I might not agree with those people's points of view, but I think their action is reasonable -- especially in this day and age where we all have sites of our own on which to espouse our thoughts.

To summarise: storm, teacup, more exciting things to discuss than this.

26 - What a sorry state of affairs.... It was a great post to start with John, and I think that bearing it in mind when blogging/commenting does force one to frame one's output in the right context.<br /><br />The issue came when Charles, completely unintentionally, linked the post with feedback on the Beta forum. Clearly all feedback is welcome on the Beta forums, no matter how negative, I feel blogs are different in this regard.<br /><br />I personally feel that it is Volker's style of doing these things that creates so much anger and dismay. He has this manner of raising issues with a clear target and attitude without editorialising his own views, hence it is hard to criticise him directly at the time. However over time, his postings do have a far bigger and wider impact than perhaps they deserve, and this is the uncontrollable aspect of what he does.<br /><br />My own personal beef is that he doesn't follow his own rules - e.g. he moans that others (including myself) post (unflattering) photos of him at Lotusphere { <a href="{ Link } rel="nofollow" target ="blank">Link</a> } , then procedes to post a photo of someone else in a less than flattering pose on the very same day { <a href="{ Link } rel="nofollow" target ="blank">Link</a> } . A trivial example perhaps, but you get the point

27 - @10 - I sympathize, and understand you wouldn't be pleased, but I guess it could be argued that by posting a comment publicly on Ed's blog, you left yourself open to be quoted. People have certainly quoted my comments before, and even sometimes as a major part of a post I didn't like.

@14 - I am not sure how mentioning John's name would have made it less negative. John is the one who posted the list, but Chris Reckling immediately chimed in with an "Amen", and the sentiments are similar to those expressed by other IBM folks over a series of beta forums. My guess is that Volker was actually trying to make it less personal, and less about John, and respond to some generally perceived notions about how IBM feels. At least, that is how I read it.

28 - @15, why do you assume that Volker is referring to a picture of himself? I believe it was a picture of "Wild" Bill Buchan that he thought was inappropriate.

I think there is a world of difference between posting a picture of someone changing their shirt (all be it in public) and a picture of the first row of an auditorium. It's not like the guy had his finger buried in his schnoz.