I had many reasons for reading Michael Lewis’s latest book, Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game. The book is about baseball, which I love, and more specifically, about the Oakland A’s recent run of success. I’ve been living in the Bay Area for about seven years now, and have adopted the A’s as my American League team. (Becoming a Giants‘ fan was not an option, as I remain loyal to my hometown Dodgers.) The book also talks a lot about Paul De Podesta, a fellow alumnus who graduated one year before me.    (1K)

After finishing the book, I discovered another reason for reading Moneyball: It offers insight that’s relevant to my interest in understanding collaboration and a compelling case study of one particular community.    (1L)

Metrics    (1M)

Moneyball is about how economics have changed the game of baseball. Up until the late 1990s, evaluating ballplayers had been an exercise in hand-waving, gut instincts, and misleading measurements of things like speed, strength, and even the structure of a player’s face. These practices had long been institutionalized, and there was little incentive to change.    (1N)

Market forces created that incentive. First, player salaries skyrocketed. It was more acceptable to risk $10,000 on a prospect than it was to risk $10 million. Second, market imbalances created a league of haves and have-nots, where the richest teams could spend triple the amount on salaries than the poorest. For small market teams — like the A’s — to compete, they had no choice but to identify undervalued (i.e. cheap), overachieving players.    (1O)

This new need led baseball executives like Oakland’s Billy Beane to the work of Bill James, a longtime baseball writer with a cult following. James castigated the professional baseball community for its fundamental lack of understanding of the game, and set about to reform the way it was measured. One problem was an overreliance on subjective observation. James wrote:    (1P)

Think about it. One absolutely cannot tell, by watching, the difference between a .300 hitter and a .275 hitter. The difference is one hit every two weeks. It might be that a reporter, seeing every game that the team plays, could sense that difference over the course of the year if no records were kept, but I doubt it. Certainly, the average fan, seeing perhaps a tenth of the team’s games, could never gauge two performances that accurately — in fact if you see both 15 games a year, there is a 40% chance that the .275 hitter will have more hits than the .300 hitter in the games that you see. The difference between a good hitter and an average hitter is simply not visible — it is a matter of record.    (1Q)

James was not simply a lover of numbers. Baseball was already replete with those. He was an advocate for numbers with meaning. The game had far less of these. Errors, for example, are a subjective measure, determined by a statistician watching the game, of whether or not a player should have made a defensive play. They do not account for a player’s ability to get in position to make a play in the first place. As a result, errors are a misleading measure of defensive ability.    (1R)

Lewis makes an important point about James’s work:    (1S)

James’s first proper essay was the preview to an astonishing literary career. There was but one question he left unasked, and it vibrated between his lines: if gross miscalculations of a person’s value could occur on a baseball field, before a live audience of thirty thousand, and a television audience of millions more, what did that say about the measurement of performance in other lines of work? If professional baseball players could be over- or under-valued, who couldn’t? Bad as they may have been, the statistics used to evaluate baseball players were probably far more accurate than anything used to measure the value of people who didn’t play baseball for a living.    (1T)

Extending this line of thinking further, how do we measure the effectiveness of collaboration? If we can’t measure this accurately, then how do we know if we’re getting better or worse at it? Baseball has the advantage of having well-defined rules and objectives. The same does not hold with most other areas, including collaboration. Is it even possible to measure anything in these areas in a meaningful way?    (1U)

The Sabermetrics Community    (1V)

James called his search for objective measures in baseball “sabermetrics,” named after the Society for American Baseball Research. Out of his work emerged a community of hard-core fans dedicated to studying sabermetrics. Lewis writes:    (1W)

James’s literary powers combined with his willingness to answer his mail to create a movement. Research scientists at big companies, university professors of physics and economics and life sciences, professional statisticians, Wall Street analysts, bored lawyers, math wizards unable to hold down regular jobs — all these people were soon mailing James their ideas, criticisms, models, and questions.    (1X)

…    (1Y)

Four years into his experiment James was still self-publishing his Baseball Abstract but he was overwhelmed by reader mail. What began as an internal monologue became, first, a discussion among dozens of resourceful people, and then, finally, a series of arguments in which fools were not tolerated.    (1Z)

…    (20)

The swelling crowd of disciples and correspondents made James’s movement more potent in a couple of ways. One was that it now had a form of peer review: by the early 1980s all the statistical work was being vetted by people, unlike James, who had a deep interest in, and understanding of, statistical theory. Baseball studies, previously an eccentric hobby, became formalized along the lines of an academic discipline. In one way it was an even more effective instrument of progress: all these exquisitely trained, brilliantly successful scientists and mathematicians were working for love, not money. And for a certain kind of hyperkinetic analytical, usually male mind there was no greater pleasure than searching for new truths about baseball.    (21)

Bill James had three important effects on the community. First, his writing created a Shared Language that enabled the community to grow and thrive. Second, he Led By Example, which gave him added credibility and created a constant flow of ideas and activity. Third, he answered his mail, and in such a way, transformed his monologue into a community dialogue.    (22)

The story of the sabermetrics community’s constant battle with baseball insiders provides a lesson on the dissemination of new ideas. Lewis describes how Major League Baseball largely ignored sabermetricians, even in the face of indisputable evidence, and explains how even today, the impediments continue. Sadly, the forces of institutionalization have prevented progress in many organizations and communities, not just baseball.    (23)

A Brief Review    (24)

Moneyball isn’t just a thought-provoking treatise on the objective nature of human affairs. At its core, it’s simply a great baseball book. Lewis is an excellent story-teller, and his retelling of interactions with players such as David Justice, Scott Hatteberg, and Chad Bradford make you feel like you’re in the clubhouse. More than anything, Moneyball is a fascinating portrayal of Billy Beane, the can’t-miss prospect who missed, and who then turned the Oakland A’s into baseball’s biggest success story.    (25)

Whining In Private

In the process of writing Blue Oxen Associate‘s first research report, “An Introduction to Open Source Communities” (BOA-00007), I wanted to describe a pattern I had observed in the SquirrelMail community. The problem was, I could not figure out what to call it. I came up with something thoroughly inadequate, included it in the first draft, and subsequently removed it after Chris Dent rightfully criticized it.    (U)

A few days later, in a fit of silliness, I thought of a name: Whine In Private. Squirrel Mail’s core team was well-versed at whining in private, and for some reason, I thought that it was useful, important behavior that needed to be highlighted and discussed. Unfortunately, I still could not articulate why, and thus, it never made it into the report.    (V)

A Parliamentary Model of Virtual Communities    (W)

I realize now why I got stuck. Whine In Private is an important pattern, but what is even more important is the notion of space and boundaries within communities. There are at least two kinds of space in every community — private and public — and appropriate behaviors depend on the space in which they take place.    (X)

This may seem obvious, but it’s not always taken into consideration when people study communities. It’s easy to assume that all discourse in online communities occurs online and in public. Sometimes, this is true, but not always. I contend that most effective online communities have a substantial amount of correspondence between members that occurs outside of the public forums. I further contend that this correspondence is not merely idle chit-chat, but communication that is essential to the overall group dynamic.    (Y)

In BOA-00007, I describe two open source communities — TouchGraph and Squirrel Mail — both of which exhibit this behavior. In the case of Touch Graph, I note that Alex Shapiro, the project’s founder and leader, had named three people who had made significant contributions to the project, and yet, none of those three people had ever posted to Touch Graph’s public forums. All of those conversations had occurred over private e-mail.    (Z)

Similarly, core members of Squirrel Mail, whose public forum is significantly more active than Touch Graph’s, frequently correspond over private e-mail, instant messenging, and even the telephone. Additionally, Squirrel Mail, has a private mailing list that is reserved for core contributors.    (10)

Both Touch Graph and Squirrel Mail exhibit a parliamentary model of community interaction. In a parliament, discourse between community members is public and is often archived for the public record. However, a significant amount of interaction occurs behind-the-scenes, and these backroom meetings often shape the discussion and decision-making on the floor.    (11)

Without awareness of the private interactions, it would be impossible to fully comprehend the public interactions. A prime example is the filibuster. On the surface, a filibuster seems to consist of an individual hogging the floor with rhetoric that adds no new insights to the discussion at hand. In reality, a filibuster is a political move designed to stall decision-making until a compromise is reached behind-the-scenes.    (12)

Online communities resemble this parliamentary model, and as a result, we must be cautious when studying these communities. We cannot fully understand the patterns of public discourse in an online community without also understanding the context of those interactions.    (13)

Think Out Loud    (14)

Recognizing the parliamentary model of virtual communities is useful, but it also begs the question: When should one discuss things in private rather than in public? I believe that the answer is different for online communities than it is for face-to-face communities, because the digital medium encourages another important pattern of collaboration: Think Out Loud.    (15)

One important aspect of online communities is that the interaction is usually archived and accessible to an even larger community. When you post to an online forum, you are aware of a finite number of people who are visible within that community and who will most likely pay attention to what you say, but you are also cognizant of the possibility that many other people may be listening. That possibility subtly influences what you say and whether you say it.    (16)

For example, one behavior that is common in online forums is long, back-and-forth conversations between two people, exchanges that are not always acknowledged as on-topic or accessible to the community at large. Although opinions differ on the appropriateness of these exchanges, they are tolerated far more often on online forums than in face-to-face meetings. Because they occur asynchronously, only those interested in following the discussion need devote the time to do so. Listening closely to these conversations, especially when held between respected members of the community with strongly opposed viewpoints, can be extremely enlightening.    (17)

Think Out Loud is an important pattern of collaboration, and members of successful online communities tend to do it well. I think that Touch Graph would have benefited from doing more Think Out Loud by having the core contributors discuss their changes on the public forum rather than over private e-mail.    (18)

However, Think Out Loud has its drawbacks. The biggest is the danger of information overload. While a detailed exchange between two gurus can be fascinating, it can also clog your e-mail. If enough of these exchanges occur, you may find yourself ignoring the content of that community entirely.    (19)

Additionally, some things are simply best left unsaid, or at least said in private. That generally includes whining.    (1A)

Whine In Private    (1B)

In my description of Squirrel Mail in BOA-00007, I alluded to some political difficulties, but I did not elaborate, because I did not have enough time to hear all sides of the story. I would never have even known about these problems had I not been as aggressively thorough with my research. Every core member of the project knew about these problems and had given these problems some thought, and yet, none of them had ever mentioned these problems publically. In other words, they had Whined In Private.    (1C)

There’s an old saying in sports about “keeping it in the locker room.” In the military, etiquette prevents officers from criticizing their superiors in front of other soldiers. Everyone knows that there are going to be internal squabbles even among the closest groups of people, and the common wisdom is to work these problems out in private when possible.    (1D)

I felt like Squirrel Mail did an excellent job of Whining In Private — working out their problems over private e-mail and telephone — and I am certain that it helped strengthen the bonds within the community while maintaining a strong, unified public front. What I wanted to convey in BOA-00007 was that effective communities knew when to discuss things in public and when to discuss things in private. I failed to do this, because I was still unable to identify to my satisfaction when it was appropriate to Whine In Private, and why.    (1E)

Further Graying the Boundaries    (1F)

At first glance, Whine In Private seems to be in direct conflict with Think Out Loud. (This is not strictly true, as there is an implicit qualifier to Think Out Loud of “when appropriate.”) The premise of Think Out Loud is that there is value in expressing yourself when you know (or at least think) that other people are listening. The premise of Whine In Private is that some things are best left unsaid, or at least said privately.    (1G)

However, not only do online communities blur the notions of public and private space, but different tools blur them even more. In the paradigm of online forums, for example, Think Out Loud and Whine In Private do indeed conflict. However, blogs are public vehicles of self-expression, public spaces that feel private, and thus, facilitate some level of both patterns simultaneously.    (1H)

Blogs allow you to Think Out Loud as much as you like without fear of overburdening others with information, because listening is strictly voluntary. Listening is not entirely voluntary with online forums; if it were, then spam would not be a problem, because people could simply ignore it.    (1I)

Similarly, blogs allow you to Whine In Private, or at least feel like you’re Whining In Private. The fact that they are not actually private cannot be ignored. For example, I do not think it would have been appropriate for the Squirrel Mail core members to complain about their political problems on their blogs. However, I do think there are circumstances where whining on a blog would actually be positive for a community, while making the same complaints on a mailing list would be disastrous.    (1J)

Why Am I Blogging?

I’ve followed the blogging community for over a year now, but had no desire to participate until recently. I didn’t think the world needed to know what I had for dinner on Tuesday, or the latest hijinx involving my neighbor’s cat.    (F)

Two events changed my mind about starting a blog: The launch of Blue Oxen Associates, and constant badgering from my Blue Oxen Associates’ cofounder, Chris Dent.    (G)

Our goal at Blue Oxen Associates is to understand and improve all aspects of collaboration. In this context, it’s important for us to understand why blogging is important and where it fits into the collaboration universe. More importantly, we believe strongly in learning by doing. Studying the community along would only take us so far. To really understand blogging, we would have to blog ourselves.    (H)

Observation and Motivation    (I)

Despite this reasoning, Chris jumped on the bandwagon well before I did. When we first got started, I was fascinated with Wikis — still am — and we made them, along with archived mailing lists, an integral part of our tool infrastructure. Chris, however, didn’t let me forget about blogs. As we worked on projects and discussed bigger picture issues, he often talked about how cool the blogging community was. Many of his comments centered around the openness and looseness of the community, how there were few barriers to participating and yet enough structure to serve as a community as opposed to a random amalgam of voices.    (J)

Because of Chris’s enthusiasm, I started following blogs more closely, and I began gaining a better understanding of when they were effective and why. After only a few months, a cluster of bloggers — Chris and several others — had emerged seemingly out of the blue, and were having insightful discussions about many of the topics that concerned us.    (K)

In the meantime, I had started to notice some strange behavior in our own communities. We host several collaboratories, online spaces where members can collaborate and experiment with different tools and ideas. Our collaboratories are still in beta and are currently invitation-only, but our Collaboration Collaboratory has been active since December 2002. On several occasions, someone on our mailing list would raise the possibility of using a blog as a way of disseminating information. The responses ranged from apathetic to negative. The strongest objection was that while most of our members read their e-mail, they wouldn’t proactively seek out a blog.    (L)

As I observed both the blogging and our mailing list-centric communities, I realized that some people were using our list as if it were a blog, instead of an actual blog. One of the culprits explained that he did so if it were a blog] that he did this because he knew that people read the list and would give him feedback, whereas he wasn’t confident that the same would happen with a blog.    (M)

Patterns of Collaboration    (N)

What’s wrong with this reasoning? Frankly, nothing. When we collaborate, there are certain patterns that arise over and over again. Tools can facilitate these patterns, and often, more than one tool applies. For example, several software tools facilitate Telling Stories — e-mail, blogs, Wikis, even word processors for that matter. As the patterns become more specialized, however, so do the tools. You can put a nail through a board using a frying pan, but you’re much better off using a hammer.    (O)

We were supposed to be a high-performance community, and high-performance communities were supposed to use the best tool for the job. I didn’t like the fact that we were using a mailing list as a blog, when a blog was much more effective for that purpose. Thanks to Chris’s badgering and my own observations, I knew that we could overcome some of our member’s objections to blogs. I also knew that if I were going to convince others to change, I would have to change first.    (P)

Coevolution    (Q)

One other thing about bloggers that resonated strongly with me was that this community actively coevolved its tools. Coevolution — a term coined by Doug Engelbart — describes the relationship between tools and human processes. One does not evolve without the other. In order to facilitate this coevolution, those who design tools must work closely with those who use them. This sounds obvious, but it is a depressingly rare practice in the software world.    (R)

The hacker community is one of the best practitioners of coevolution, because they are both tool developers and users. They eat their own dogfood. Bloggers are much the same way. Two widely used Web technologies — XML-RPC and RSS — were invented by bloggers to support their needs. Ben Trott, one of the creators of Movable Type, recently created TrackBack, which has the potential to serve as the foundation of an Internet-wide distributed backlink engine. In general, many bloggers seem to be on the cutting edge when it comes to Web standards adoption and compliance.    (S)

Eating our own dogfood is also a constant refrain within Blue Oxen Associates. Chris has been generating large amounts of tasty dogfood recently, and so it’s time for me to have a bite.    (T)

Blosxom Installed!

Welcome to my blog, courtesy of Rael Dornfest‘s blosxom 2.0rc5. After examining the available blog tools and following the blosxom mailing list for some time, I finally decided to bite the bullet and install blosxom. Configuration and customization took a few days of mucking around, most of which consisted of experimenting with look-and-feel and determining which plugins I wanted to install. I found Eric Costello’s site on Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) invaluable in helping me hack together the look-and-feel I wanted in a mostly standards-compliant fashion. The resulting flavour files are available for your perusal.    (1)

I’m using the following standard plugins:    (2)

I’m also using a plugin I wrote — blosxom_purple — that will eventually make it to Rael’s plugin registry. The reason it’s not there already is that it relies on PurpleWiki v0.9, which has not yet been released. I’ll announce and discuss the plugin here when it’s finally available.    (8)

As I researched blogging tools, my choices quickly narrowed to blosxom and Movable Type. I think that Movable Type is an outstanding tool, but I decided to go with blosxom for the following reasons:    (9)

  • It’s open source.    (A)
  • It’s ridiculously compact and extensible. It doesn’t try to do too much itself, but it makes additional functionality possible with its support for flavours and plugins. In other words, it reeks of The Unix Way, of which I’m a big fan.    (B)
  • Chris Dent, my business partner at Blue Oxen Associates, runs Movable Type.    (C)

This last reason is important because it doubles the number of blogging tools with which we collectively have direct, deep experience, and because it doubles the number of tools we plan on actively coevolving. Why coevolve our tools? First, because we use and rely on them ourselves, and coevolution is a natural way of improving them. Second, it’s the most effective way to spread the ideas we have about collaborative tools. As the hacker community is fond of saying, we want to eat our own dogfood.    (D)

Two of these ideas are purple numbers and Wiki/blog integration. Chris has been doing a lot of cool things in these areas with Movable Type, and now, I’m making the same things available in blosxom. We’d like to see these ideas spread and improve, so if you have questions or comments, don’t hesitate to contact me. Better yet, blog your comments, and link here!    (E)