An Open Letter to David Kane regarding the EB brouhaha

David,

As an anonymous commenter put it,  there is a great need to step back here and evaluate this situation in a manner that at least attempts some sort of distance and objectivity. 
Equally,  it seems worthwhile to state that I see little evidence of any such attempt.

Overview.  Unlike almost anyone involved in this situation,  I have a practice as an IT professional.  I say this not to brag or posture,  but merely to point out the naked relevance of the fact.

In our discussions,  and since our agreement to move EphBlog to Drupal,  my intent has been to move EphBlog towards being a "community" website,  which is operated in a progressively more "professional" manner.  By "professional,  I mean in a manner that is akin to both similar projects,   and to the norms which I see prevailing in the industry.

In this regard,  over the past two to three years,  I have tried to give you and others involved in the project:  

•     a sense of where you are relative to what is being done by others;  
•     of what is being done in the industry and what may be done here;
•     and of what is typical,  and where we might use the available technologies to do things outside and above the norm.

I have also sought to push the project forward,  as possible.

In this regard,  I want to state with frankness that the level of participation,  involvement and responsiveness on the part of the 'organization' which is EphBlog,  has been minimal or largely unhelpful.  I mean this purely as an evaluation,   intended to place this project and what has occurred in the past months and years in a comparative position,  relative to other projects,  and not as invective,  personal insult,  nor to reflect poorly on the individuals involved.  

It is not a fault that those involved lacked domain experience,  but it was and is a serious deficiency and handicap,  to be recognized and addressed.   In this regard,  I will point you to the experience of a "Board" discussion,  in which most members essentially rolled their eyes and conveyed that they did not have time for the matter at hand,  nor wish to give it further consideration.

Investment requirements,  etc.  The problem is that people who seriously build sites of this nature,  give such matters great consideration and time.  As I have tried to convey before,  developing community websites takes time,  takes expertise,  takes work.  In this regard,  again objectively,  there is simply no questioning that to date EphBlog has been an amateur work from a technical perspective.

I have also tried,   in an attempt to give perspective and an idea of what is at stake,   to cite typical site build costs and hourly rates.   Again, when I cite costs in the range of $50K,  or hourly rates of $250US,  I am not boasting,  exaggerating or posturing.  These are the prevailing norms,  facts which are easily verified.   My intent is to place this project in terms of those norms so that our efforts and perspective might be properly "aligned" to reality.

Equally,  I have tried to put this situation in perspective for others,  such as Whitney,  by giving a simple 1 to 10 rating of EphBlog's organizational "internal technical expertise" in comparison to other clients.   I told Whitney,  EphBlog's rating might be 1.5.  Whitney acknowledged this,  but the point of the example for decision-making,  and the need to step back and take lack of knowledge and experience into account,  seems to have been missed.

Inappropriate participation,  lack of fact-gathering and other due diligence;  plain hostility.  Largely,  when I relate normal concerns and considerations,  and ask the quite normal questions in the course of such projects,  I've received rolling eyes and been treated as if I have no idea what I'm talking about and am unreasonable-- if not insane.
When I sat down with a group of my professional peers,  (as I do weekly when in Nashville and other cities),  and tried to describe this situation-- which by no means conforms to the 'norms of things' in my profession and practice-- they all rolled their eyes in turn and acknowledge this as a "morass" situation.  Or in short,  this is a kind of situation we have experienced before,  recognize,  and all avoid if at all possible.

In terms of clients and client relations,  the simple fact is,  the less experienced a client and the less technical experience they bring to the table,  usually the more difficult they will be to service and the less profitable.   My ideal client is one with a great deal of internal technical expertise-- often,  covering many areas far beyond my knowledge-- to which I can bring very specialized knowledge and skills,  which they lack.

Nonetheless,   I do also and often take on more general clients and project.  The problem remains that even a mid-range client will still have a great deal of internal technical knowledge and therefore ability to support the project from their end.   A lower-range client will have little knowledge,  and no ability to provide this support.  In my experience and that of most of my collegues,   they often will expect "the moon" with little idea of what it takes to produce "the moon."  Often they will not value a consultant's expertise and advice,  in a situation where a corporate client would be paying $150/hr without thinking-- while expecting far less from the consultant,  because they have a good idea of "what it takes" to produce particular results,  and what is reasonable to expect.

This has certainly been such a situation.    "A nightmare."

Non-standard,  spurious requests and demands.  You have forwarded a variety of demands and assertions,  as have others involved.  The simple fact is that these demands and assertions do not fit into the norms and expectations of my business.  They are not posed in the customary language of how things are done in my industry.  They are not normal (they have clearly been part of some rather silly power games,  as well).

I might cite my encounter with Mike Moore,   when he said that the WTO doesn't force anyone to do anything,   but if you want to be a member of the WTO,  you have to adopt standardized procedures for a variety of things-- contracts,   legal procedures,  accounting,  etc.   "There's a way things are typically done;"  and then there are unrecognizable morasses of trying to re-invent the wheel when you don't know how a wheel is made.

Equally, I could also speak to you about the difference between professional development and the amateur level of development where a sole proprietor declares "my cousin could do that!";  the previous is a common joke in the industry.   My point is that this situation feels very much like that,  and has been filled with that dynamic;  my point is also that not adopting standard and recognizable ways of doing things,  gets nowhere,  slowly.

The non-crisis;  the sky was not falling;  manufactured crisis.  Moving back to the current situation,  the simple fact is that no great crisis has occurred.   A technological migration occurred;  in the middle of that migration,  the Chicken Little who built the previous system,  sent out a bunch of emails about a "takeover" and organized a user revolt.
Yes,  I've seen similar before,  but never quite this.

That's all there is to it,  however much you want to play the equivocation game and state,  "it might be true or it might not."  I've been to this rodeo before;  you haven't,  so please just stop playing games and accept the facts.  No business of any consequence,  would have allowed anything like what happened here to occur-- without risking its bottom line,  at least!

The reality here is that the new EphBlog works pretty much the same way as the old one.  It's a different system,  yes;  you've learned and become accustomed to how the default interface in WordPress does things,  but Drupal is not that different (there are in fact about a 100 interface options,  to meet various needs;  you're seeing one very basic "default").
And you have a lot to learn,  about something of which you know very little.

There's also nothing particularly "right" or "easy" about how WordPress does things.  Quite the opposite.  You learned how WordPress does things,  and got used to it-- but WordPress is in no way a "standard" or even "normal" as such things go.  You can also learn the same basics of how another system works in 15 to 30 minutes;  people in IT,  do such things all the time!

Another very relevant fact is that Drupal has somewhat taken the world by storm,  with many large organizations converting as quickly as possible and reaping the benefits-- and this fact also speaks highly to the fact that there was no crisis here,  except a made-up one.   We could speak about Vandy,  which has converted about 50% of operations and reduced related staffing by about 50%-- the foregoing,  is again to cite a basic metric of the advantages.

But such discussions are for another time.

At the core,  technical choices.  Moving to Drupal is a technical decision,  to be evaluated objectively.  As our anonymous commentator put it,  there is a need to step back and evaluate the issues here rationally,  and objectively,  or,  put in another language,  as a business organization seeking to do what you want to do,  would look at it.

That takes time,  and could involve all sorts of aspects and discussions-- some of which would be valuable,  to building understanding of what's going on.  However,   a decision was made to move forward. 

And to repeat the point I've been trying to make for at least two years,  web development of all kinds,  is now serious business.  Sites easily cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce,   and similar amounts to maintain.  In contrast to how 'Ronit' put it,  what professionals in this industry do,  is not simply "make pretty websites" "with PHP." 

It's far more complex,  and involves a great deal more,   including both experience and good judgment.

Regarding unilateral demands and the way things are done.  Recently,  you forwarded me another demand for "the EphBlog database and files,"  -- I will note,  as if you had not read my email to you.  A number of other comments have been made and posted here and there.

This is not how things are done in my professional experience, and opinion.

I am not typically forwarded unilateral demands for such files-- files which are not your property,  I might add-- and if I were,  for instance by a VP at Digital Research (to cite a client),  I would generally expect that client to realize that executing the request might not be as straightforward as you,  or others with an amateurs level of experience,  seem to think.

You are not doing things as things are typically done in the professional world,  so let me tell you how things are done in your situation.

Since resurrecting or "reverting" the WordPress version was clearly and transparently your intent,  I would normally receive a request like "We'd like to revert to the WordPress version.  Can you send the files necessary to do this,  or tell us what it will take to accomplish?"

At which point in a collegial and professional dialogue,   I have the opportunity to tell you why this is a very,  very bad idea,   communicate some of the issues involved and the lost opportunity and other costs of doing so,  including the time and difficulty of again converting to Drupal at a future point-- and my own investment to-date--  and then we can consider the options and factors,  and discuss and weight them in a rational,  objective manner.

But that's exactly what you have not done.  And while people here have told me that they can't talk to me about this,  because I'm "unreasonable" and "impossible to work with,"  the very basic fact is that I have no problem talking with and working with clients at a variety of levels. 

The basic point of fact is that,  from a technical perspective,  you guys have little to no idea what you're talking about,  (though you act like you do),   have not bothered to act in an evaluative and knowledge-seeking manner,  and in short,  have been entirely unreasonable and impossible to work with.   Neither has "your side," in large part,  been willing to learn and engage in the kinds of discussions,  that are common in real and actual practice.

COUNTER-DEMANDS.   In terms of my expectations of you -- which are demands,  I must point out-- I expect you to move forward with our agreement regarding EphBlog,  and support this transition and the future of Eph(b)log in whatever its future form is,  in every way you possibly can.

I expect and demand that you will end this silliness,  cease with the transparent and destructive games and act to suppress them where you see them,  and start acting forthrightly to end this conflict,  moving this project forward in a normal,  professional matter,  as best as you are able.

Of course,  if you do not fulfill these expectations and demands,  I will have further responses,  and I hope that is clear.  Again,  I do these sorts of things as part of a professional practice.  I've seem such situations play out before,  and I'm far more familiar,  with how matters like this have and can be played out,  than you are.   Conflict in the end is ridiculous and non-productive.

Expectation of professional treatment.  I also expect to be treated professionally,  and as a senior professional in this domain who is providing professional services as a partner in the endeavor. 

There is a odd and destructive dynamic which has occurred here,  which can be summarized by saying that a reasonable client compensating me at typical hourly or project rates would never have treated me as I have been treated here-- or they would have been been "fired" and promptly received a bill for my time.

Since you have not been paying for my time,  (and since you and others seem to have no idea of how that time is typically compensated,) it seems that you may have felt you could approach this situation without normal consideration and respect,  and dismiss,  condesend to and deceive me as if I were a low-level employee.  I assure you,  that is not the case and you need to consider how much the foregoing is part of the problem.

Longer analysis and materials;  no obligation to provide.  Over the past three weeks,  I prepared longer materials that might explain this situation and the options to you,  as I found time.  The base reality is that I have spent over 20 hours doing this,  and I might well be paid $5,000 for a similar report for a paying client.  I should and do not need to provide the same "for free" to explain myself to a "client" who is not aware of very basic realities and needs instruction.

Equally,  I am and would have been glad to provide support,  aid,  instruction and development services to this project,  had this conflict not occurred.  I am under no obligation to do so,  and to constantly explain myself,  under highly hostile circumstances,  and will not do so.

You should also understand that I fully expected your support and that of other internal members of the EphBlog community during this transition,  and in no way planned to (or wished to) be left running Eph(b)log "on my own."  To be brief,  the organized sabotage of Eph(b)log as it stands,  has resulted in what is left being far weaker than it might and should be,  and quite easily can be taken as involving a wide range of actions that are legally actionable.

WordPress revert idea;   poor decision-making;   prior commitments and investments.  You and others have continued to leave suggestions and signals "on the table" here,   which boil down to re-establishing a separate version of EphBlog under WordPress.  Any such course is simply ill-considered and wrong for a large variety of reasons.

Operating two versions of the site, one with an outdated/inappropriate technological platform,  would simply be divisive and confusing to users (in terms of "branding"  &etc),  -- just to begin. 

Such suggestions reveal a great deal of poor decision-making and lack of objective,  distanced consideration,  and their origins in "behind the scenes,"  "backroom dealing",  "infighting" and so forth is what it is-- a fairly good summary,  of the poor management and decision-making processes being EphBlog to date.   These things must end,  and I hope that by now,  it is clear that I am prepared to employ significant coersive force to ensure that they do end.

I did not "sign on,"  nor commit serious resources,  to operate another site at another domain,  in division and competition with EphBlog.  I agreed and committed my resources to creating an "online community" for the College at the EphBlog.com domain.    Anything else is a breach of our agreements,  as well as just plain ill-advised.

Governance structures or lack thereof.  The governance structures of Eph(b)log,  and their lack of clarity (etc.) also play highly in this matter.  However, no further discussion of them is necessary in this document.

Defamations.  As well,  I need to point out that there have been a wide variety of simply false and defamatory emails and postings distributed about me,  which accuse me of doing things I did not do,  of various acts ("stealing" and so forth) which I did not take and which cannot be substantiated,  and which insult and damage my professional reputation. 

This is in no way acceptable and also must end;  it is also a matter which,   despite all naive assertions to the contrary,  is entirely legally actionable, and which I will take legal action in response to,  if repairs are not made.   Though the behavioral standards of some anonymous online forums have come to prevail,  no one has been anonymous here and everyone is accountable for their actions and statements.

To the extent to which you have been a part of the pattern and actions above,  intentionally or unintentionally,  I demand that you cease to be a part of this and to correct the record in a proactive manner.  As for others involved in this,   I will also place them  on the "legal department" stack of my desk and deal with them on my own.

End the divisiveness -- now.  Turning back to EphBlog,  as should be clear,  I am also making a demand of you,  and in colloquial language,  it is "end this divisive petty pointless bullshit,  now."  There is no point to this and it serves no purpose.  In terms of my own time,  I had perhaps 70 hours to devote to EphBlog-- mostly technical tasks-- over the past two months,  and at least half of that has been spent in pointless,  petty conflicts of the most mundane sort-- plus more time that was unanticipated and disruptive to my life.  That's a loss.

Roles;  other concerns;  ultimate directions.  As far as articles on EphBlog and the like,  while it is interesting to be following Williams news closely,  and useful in terms of considering how to build systems to "do it better" and "on a larger scale," I really don't want to be the person gathering news and posts for EphBlog "on my own"-- I don't think anyone should be "running the show" in that manner,  and it's simply and certainly not a role I wish to play.

I am the site developer and consultant;  I take your role,  as the business founder and director,  who has partnered with me in the endeavor (and,  by the way,  who should learn to effectively distance himself from matters not his expertise).

I will point out-- in response to one of your concerns-- while it may have taken you a few hours or more to gather and prepare posts of videos from Williams,  that is something I can make a tool to do and accomplish in -- 15 minutes to an half-hour.  (All your video posts could have been "aggregated" in that time).  Give me a few hours and I can build something that records and exposes metadata,  and opens the possibility of a "library tool" that is open and useable by others in the Williams community.

These are the sort of things we can be doing and should be doing,  and which others are doing across the industry.   It does take time,  but any perception that it is "too hard" or "too complex" is absurd.  If you don't have the time or will to engage in such a conversation or course of development,  that's another situation-- one in which I'll kindly ask you to stand aside and support others doing the work.

I thus see myself (and what I want to do) not as the person who gathers and posts all this stuff,  but as the person who can create and give people the tools along the quite common "community" or "crowdsourced" models.  I can create tools which follow Williams news around the internet,  and give anyone willing to learn a little,  the ability to look at that news and "promote" interesting items to EB for discussion,  in minutes instead of hours.

Which,  really,   is "the tenth of it,"  as you should know from our previous conversations.  I will not address or lay out "visions" or larger directions,  at this time.

Errata;  various technical and other considerations.  Finally,  and in closing,  a variety of tech-ish notes which move off-message but need to be said:

When you or anyone else "points out an issue" on a site such as EB,  such as the "posted by" issue,  9+ times out of 10,  I or any other tech professional will already be aware,  tracking the issue and looking for an appropriate solution.   Presuming a professional environment,  you are generally not making someone aware of an issue when you point it out in such a case;  generally,  the task is to inform you of the status of the large variety of such issues in a large project,  educate you about the appropriate issues,  and provide you with an opportunity for input if there are options or decisions to be made.

Such "input" is,  however,  often (perhaps half the time or more) entirely critical and necessary,  in situations where one is not simply deploying pre-made,  stock software "off the shelf,"  but engaging in significant,  custom "development work."    (Again,  I could point you to various materials regarding this and engage in discussion,  but that is not the focus of this document.)

Typically (or at least,  "effectively")  IT professionals do not deal with issues "ad hoc;"  we make lists,  track,  and respond with available resources and time in the most efficient manner we can acheive.  Because such matters take time -- real time,  with the possibility that any particular issue will "explode" into hours-- an "ad hoc,"  "on demand" or "amateur"-level tracking and response is simply highly inefficient and costly.  If you are in the position of someone on a limited budget paying a staff on an hourly or similar arrangement,   you may see the advantage of adopting "best practices" in dealing with such issues,  and reporting and tracking them in a highly organized and efficient manner,  rather than lobbing an unclear report or request into another discussion and leaving it to "the staff."

In all these matters,   conflict is usually destructive and less valuable than doing things and getting things done-- and my focus here is and should be on engaging in site development,  not conflict and relatively low-level discussion of disagreements.  This may be your "first community website,"  but I've had over 100 clients in the past four  years alone.  Though I am entirely willing to engage in productive,  collegial professional-level discussion of the issues problems,  and matters involved,    I am not interested and will not engage in pointless bickering about low-level,  basic issues.  When the choice is between replying to you in a matter such as this,  for instance,  and helping Mike Leon '11 out in using Eph(b)log to promote his project,  or some other task that will improve the site,  I'm going to prioritize the site developement and ignore you.  I hope this is also entirely clear.

In terms of timing,  you seem to have a series of expectations which are largely out-of-line with available resources and realities.  As stated,  I had hoped to have the support and contribution of the community over the past few months,  and have much more in place at this point (the start of the semester).   Regardless, producing a professional-grade site,  with accompanying materials such as user instructions and guides,  etc.,  is (again) no small task.  At this point my timeline for achieving something on the basic order of professional-grade is approx. six months,  and I have significantly scaled back my expectations of the user acquisition and outreach we can achieve in the next semester.

A note on "we:"  I said "we,"  and that's a term I've fairly rarely heard around EB (except when it's been pulled out as a last-ditch rhetorical tool to hide personal agendas).  I've heard a lot of "I" and "I can have this..." and "can I have this?" and so forth.   In my first IT position out of grad school,   I was dressed down for using "I..." in a Board meeting,  and "I" got the point long ago;  "we" speak of "we" in business endeavors.  One of the greatest problems here,  has been a lot of people thinking of "I" in regards to EphBlog,  and of what "I" can get or do.

It's time to be more than a collection of ten or so various "I"s pulling together in opposite directions,  each unwilling to participate if they don't get their own particular vision or way,  and to work together,  with compromise and goodwill,  toward building a better online community forum for the entire College community.

Finally-- please,  take your time to think about this and think it through.

Sincerely,

Kenneth Thomas '93