On 5/25/07, Jeff Rush <jeff@taupro.com> wrote:
kirby urner wrote:
The part that makes me especially queasy is the CP4E section on pages 10-11. I wish I had more to say there. It's fairly clear to those of us who weren't there that there were some problems, but it's not especially clear what they were or what we should learn from them. I'd very much appreciate input from those who were actually there!
Where is "there" exactly?
From his email, "there" are those who were involved in the CP4E project and who can tell us why it failed to reach fruition. I've never found a good explanation myself, that didn't pull punches and told the story.
My view is CP4E is alive and well, achieving results daily.
If we have the destination in common but do not agree on the path, we cannot share the journey nor the burdens thereof and must say 'fare thee well'.
Our destination is pretty much everybody programs, a taken for granted skill, although "to program" means many things, doesn't imply mastery of Python.
Lots of proprietary stuff goes on that we only learn about on edu-sig long after the fact -- and that's OK (not a problem).
Sadly, these people miss out on a diversity of viewpoints, because they did not share their problems. Perhaps that is their fear, that someone will solve them but not in a way to their liking and without their aid. Better to keep the problems.
-Jeff
It's not either/or. Today's software is a mix and the same people may do a lot of both. Kirby