Re: would take more than an org-mode strip-down.

[Rasmus <rasmus@gmx.us>]

Hi James,

Thanks for your mails.


> You can not deny, however, that even the design of this
> forum is but one example of how the Emacs community maintains its
> exclusivity. Own up to it. 

It's a mailing list ≠ forum :) Anyway news is not fashionable, but sites
like Gmane makes it quite available.  The problem is not news but that
people generally does not know news.


> But for those who are following the statements on comparing org-mode
> to commercial substitutes like Taskpaper 

It's only a substitute if you so desire.

> In order for org-mode to be attractive as an alternative to popular
> self-help like GTD, Covey and the market of task managers both digital
> and paper that exist, this community would need to take all this
> extensive documentation and package it. 

I simply can grasp this.  The manual is provided in several flavors; if
anything the manual is lacking in some areas, but in general it's great.
Several tutorials, specifically on GTD exists on Worg (our `wiki').


> Do not confuse content with transparency.

Do not confuse a learning curve with transparency.  Algebra, philosophy
and economics also take time.


> Should open-source software not concern itself with good
> bullet points?

Emacs and therefore Org is free software.


>  Does this imply that I’m not appreciative of the work?

Course not, please keep voicing your opinion and let me voice mine :) 


> There’s an opportunity cost with finding the time for even this
> thread, which I’m hoping we can agree should not be a barrier of entry
> for those who are simply interested in trying org-mode. As it stands,
> however, just trying org-mode takes lots of reading if just to install
> correctly. That’s all I’m saying.

By now several packages of Emacs for beginners exists.  On mac there is
the Aquamacs, on Windows I think there is something called ErgoMacs or
something like that.  Plus there are various Emacs Starter Kits.


> Text is but one way that people learn. If you’re documenting sofware,
> it leans towards rational, logical, and linear thinking. 

This method has proven evolutionary stable so far, has it not?


> Some people require a full-picture model first seeing things from many
> angles. Other’s prefer trial and error, and others, still, enjoy
> hypotheticals. 

All of these seems compatible to a linear presentation.  All text is
linear but you may elect a certain order of texts suiting your needs.


> People can adopt different strategies along the way. But to insist on
> only one method of learning and sharing, while being concerned that
> you’re not meeting a larger audience is tantamount to calling the rest
> of the class stupid, or simply a manner of dishonesty with one’s own
> motivations.

This is the greatness of a freedom of ideas.  People may opt in on their
favorite approach, no?


> Maybe what would be helpful is some bridge instruction: “Graduating
> from Taskpaper: so you’re ready to try org-mode. What to expect:” I do
> find that if I have an orientation point, even if it wasn’t the best
> decision in the first place, I have a better reference as to the
> changes I would envision and what the value of future options would
> be.

You are talking about specific to general `solutions'.  As many have
pointed out this will necessarily lead to a restricted set of
possibilities.  It further assumes that there is an `appropriate' or
`encouraged' way of utilizing Org.  Aside from a few hard-coded¹ symbols
this is very much not the case.  I use Org for writing first and task
management second.  Other use it for management first. 

That being said Worg is open.  If you feel a particular tutorial
(usually specific to specific documents) is missing feel free to add it,
/or/ describe what is lacking.  For instance theoretical as well as
practical toughs on GTD is widely discussed on Worg.


> what’s the ethical ambiguity in earning a living from setting up
> management systems for people and institutions, even if you’re using
> open-source material? 

There is no ethical ambiguity.  It would be selling a service.  This is
encouraged.  The ethical issues is concerned with not providing people
with the opportunity to `remix' and re-share to use a slightly different
terminology (see freedom 0-3 of free software definition).

–Rasmus


Footnotes: 
¹  Is that still the case or was everything such a `*' changed to
variables?

-- 
Sent from my Emacs