Anthony Panozzo's Blog

A majority of open source projects have a paucity of documentation. However, they still have value as a working system. I argue that improving the documentation of a codebase intended for general use is one of the highest value activities that a developer can do. Although documentation may not be directly contributing to the codebase, the writer provides a valuable service by understanding the code and imparting that knowledge to others.

I would go so far as to say that there should be open source technical writers. They look for interesting projects to write basic documentation for. While there are a smattering of tutorials for certain frameworks, they are not condensed, are not authoritative, and are often misleading because of changes to the framework or convoluted examples. When the core developers move at the speed of the forum or even IRC, it's tough for a new person to have anywhere near that amount of knowledge. A centralized wiki with pertinent and up-to-date examples is quite useful.

I think I just formalized why I like reading.

A six month project expects approximately

6 months * 4 weeks / month * 40 hours / week = 960 hours.

Title: How to Win Friends and Influence People Authors: Dale Carnegie Published: 1990 Length: 304 pages

Of the books that I have read recently, this one seemed to be a contentious one. I discussed this book with a friend who is in sales, and we came to completely different conclusions on the book's premise. His idea was that the book contained a bunch of ways to manipulate people to get what you want, whereas I felt like the book provided methods to better understand, empathize, and work with people.

Throughout, Carnegie displays quite a bit of humor and wit, and gives memorable anecdotes to drive the points he makes home. Some things are trite on the outside, but they are quite useful once internalized. Here are some of the major points.

In a comment on my last post, Matt asked several exceedingly thought-provoking questions. I was going to respond there, but I had too many thoughts for a single comment. I had to take off my hat because I was getting too warm while thinking about this…

Ah, but what to pick, Mr. Panozzo? The road less taken? The thing that you love? The thing that really could work? The thing you can make a living at? The thing you're rather disinclined toward but you're good at and know will have the greatest impact?

Knowing you can pick a couple, sure, but you yourself admitted to 500 possibilities. Maybe one of each, or something that answers more than one question?

What'd you pick?

These deeply resonated with me, as I have thought along similar lines. As an example, in October in some personal notes I wrote the question "What is the highest good man can accomplish?" It seems like some of the questions were along these lines, asking what is the best or highest thing that one can aim for. Can you make the best impact doing something that you are especially predisposed to do, or something that you really just want to do?

As far as "what'd you pick", I'm not sure if this should expand to "what would you pick" or "what did you pick." Either way, haven't quite gotten there yet. :) I'm still exploring these questions myself. With that said, I don't have answers, but here are some thoughts.

Viewing the questions and possible answers through the lens of existentialism applies almost perfectly here. There is the knowledge that you have limited time and that ideas cannot be implemented without using some of it. There is uncertainty in the value of a decision. What will it will be worth to you, and what will it be worth to other people? What are your weights for these values? There is angst because you realize that you are absolutely free to choose.

Recently I've noticed an interesting phenomenon. Someone starts talking about a new idea or group or practice or strategy or improvement, and someone else says, "hey, I thought of that six months ago, but no one seemed to think that it was a good idea."

In the past I read about the value of something being a function of the quality of the idea and the quality of execution. This makes a lot of sense to me. You can have the greatest idea in the whole world, but without effort and execution, there is no value. Even a medium quality idea done moderately well is useful.

I have about five hundred ideas right now. Some of them are pretty good, some are a little questionable, some old, some recent. Unfortunately, I am currently making $0.00 (that exchanges to 0.00 Euros) off of those ideas. That's $0.00 worth of value that has been created by these written down ideas. They certainly give me a sense of excitement when I look at them, so I guess they're worth something. I look back in fond admiration, and still think they're pretty good. Hmm… maybe I'm attached. :)