An short-lived international coalition that barely survived to site launch, the project was interesting because of its requirement that its mission statement be displayed in half a dozen languages, include left-to-right set Hebrew and Arabic and Nepalese!
Quaker Ranter
A Weekly Newsletter and Blog from Martin Kelley
Words and reason fail when faced with such horror
April 17, 2007
It’s hard to know what to say about yesterday’s horrific massacre at Virginia Tech, where a gunman killed 32 people (at latest count) in two separate incidents. Is this an indictment of an American culture of violence? Virginia Tech has a strong military tradition, so is our war mentality to blame? Guns?, can we blame guns? Or how about the alienation of so many young people in our society?
Any answer seems glib and besides the point. This isn’t the time to be a pundit. People snap for all sorts of reasons and usually for multiple reasons that can never really be untangled.
Like all humans, I’m shocked and saddened. I’ve spent time on the campus and the students and faculty I met were always warm and hospitable, gracious and open. What must they be going through? Think of the fear of the trapped students, the fear of parents turning on the news, the fear of survivors who will have to live with the memories of this nightmare for the rest of their lives. I add my humble words to the millions of prayers that have been murmured these last twenty-four hours. May God comfort the victims alive and dead, including the shooter, who must certainly be a victim of something himself.
How do we stop the violence? How do we show our youth that violence is not the way? And how do we get these damned guns out of their hands?
On pricing philosophy
April 16, 2007
Via 37Signal’s Signals vs. Noise blog I came across a fascinating post written by Brian Fling of Blue last year on pricing a project. I’d like to talk about it and to explain my own philosophy. First a extended quote from Brian:
I find it funny… in a sad sort of way, that we often
start out our partnership with bluffing, no one saying what they are
really thinking… how much they are willing to pay and how much it
should cost… Though every book I’ve read on the topic of pricing says
to never ever ballpark, I have a tendency to do so. If they can’t
disclose the budget I typically try to start throwing a few numbers
from previous projects to help gauge the scope of what we are talking
about, call it a good faith effort to start the discussion… While this
is very awkward part of the discussion it is almost always followed by
candor. It’s as if once someone starts telling the truth, it opens a
door that can’t be closed.
I completely agree that candor is the only way to work with clients.
Maybe it’s the Quaker influence: we reportedly pioneered fixed pricing
back when everyone haggled, with the philosophy that charging true
costs were the only honest way of doing business. My official rates and contact page includes my list of “typical costs” — essentially these are the “ballpark estimates” that Brian talks about.
When I put together estimates I base it on my best-guess informed
estimates. I start by tabulating the client’s requested features and
determining how I’ll achieve them. I then estimate how long it will
take me to implement each feature and use that to determine a
first-guess for project cost. I then compare it to past projects, to
make sure I’m being realistic. I know myself well enough to know I
always want to underestimate costs – I usually like the project and want
to make it affordable to clients! – so I do force myself a reality check
that usually ends up adding a few hours to the estimate.
When I put together my official estimate I try to guess where
potential bottlenecks might happen. Sometimes these are technical
issues and something they’re more social. For example, a client might
be very particular about the design and the back-and-forth can take
longer than expected. If I think anything like this might happen I
mention it in the estimate. Sometimes as we work through the details of
a feature I’ll learn that the client wants some enhancement that we
hadn’t talked about previously and which I didn’t factor into the
estimate.
When I do see a particular part of the work taking longer than
expected I flag it with the client. I try to keep them informed that
this will add to total costs. In many cases, clients have been happy to
go with the extra work: I simply want to make sure that we both are
aware that the estimate is changing before the work happens.
I charge by the hour rather than on a per-project basis since I find
it to be a much more open business model. Brian Fling’s post agrees:
The problem [with per-project billing is that] one way
or another somebody loses, either the client pays too much, meaning
paying more than it’s market value, or the vendor eats into their
profit… One benefits to hourly billing is the client is responsible for
increases of scope, protecting the vendor and the customer. If the
project is completed early the client pays less, protecting the client.
This puts the onus on both parties to communicate regularly and work
more effectively.
I have very little overhead: a home office, laptop and DSL.
This means my rates are very competitive (one client described it as
“less than plumbers and electricians charge, more than the kid who mows
the lawn”). Being very careful with estimates mean that I often
communicate a lot with clients before I “start the clock.” I’ve often
worked with them a few hours before the estimate is in and we’re moving
forward and of course some of this un-billed work doesn’t result in a
job.
Putting together fabulous websites is fun work. It’s very much a
back-and-forth process with clients, and it’s often impossible to know
just what the site will look like and just how it will work until the
site actually launches. Half of my clientele have never had websites
before, making the work even more interesting! It’s my professional
responsibility to make sure I work with clients to foresee costs, dream
big, but most of all to be open and honest about costs as the process
unfolds.
Too-familiar buildings on the news
April 16, 2007
It’s chilly to see the breaking headlines about the shooting at Virginia Tech, already being billed as the “deadliest campus shooting in American history.” This has been the site of two recent FGC Gatherings and the campus’ unique architecture is instantly recognizable for those of us who have spent a cumulative two weeks on the campus. How horrible, how sad and tragic.
Hey who am I to decide anything
April 9, 2007
Over on Nontheist Friends website, there’s an article looking back at ten years of FGC Gathering workshops on their concern. There was also a post somewhere on the blogosphere (sorry I don’t remember where) by a Pagan Friend excited that this year’s Gathering would have a workshop focused on their concerns.
It’s kind of interesting to look at the process by which new theologies are being added into Liberal Quakerism at an ever-increasing rate.
- Membership of individuals in meetings. There are hundreds of meetings in liberal Quakerism that range all over the theological map. Add to that the widespread agreement that theological unity with the meeting is not required and just about anyone believing anything could be admitted somewhere (or “grandfathered in” as a birthright member).
- A workshop at the Friends General Conference Gathering and especially a regular workshop at successive Gatherings. Yet as the very informed comments on a post a few years ago showed, theology is not something the planning workshop committee is allowed to look at and at least one proponent of a new theology has gotten themselves on the deciding committee. The Gathering is essentially built on the nondenominational Chautaqua model and FGC is perfectly happy to sponsor workshops that are in apparent conflict with its own mission statement.
- An article published in Friends Journal. When the the Quaker Sweat Lodge was struggling to claim legitimacy it all but changed its name to the “Quaker Sweat Lodge as featured in the February 2002 Friends Journal.” It’s a good magazine’s job to publish articles that make people think and a smart magazine will know that articles that provoke a little controversy is good for circulation. I very much doubt the editorial team at the Journal considers its agreement to publish to be an inoculation against critique.
- A website and listserv. Fifteen dollars at GoDaddy.com and you’ve got the web address of your dreams. Yahoo Group is free.
There are probably other mechanisms of legitimacy. My point is not to give comprehensive guidelines to would-be campaigners. I simply want to note that none of the actors in these decisions is consciously thinking “hey, I think I’ll expand the definition of liberal Quaker theology today.” In fact I expect they’re mostly passing the buck, thinking “hey, who am I to decide anything like that.”
None of these decision-making processes are meant to serve as tools to dismiss opposition. The organizations involved are not handing out Imprimaturs and would be quite horrified if they realized their agreements were being seen that way. Amy Clark, a commenter on my last post, on this summer’s reunion and camp for the once-young members of Young Friends North America, had a very interesting comment:
I agree that YFNA has become FGC: those previously involved in YFNA have taken leadership with FGC … with both positive and negative results. Well … now we have a chance to look at the legacy we are creating: do we like it?
I have the feeling that the current generation of liberal Quaker leadership doesn’t quite believe it’s leading liberal Quakerism. By “leadership” I don’t mean the small skim of the professional Quaker bureaucracy (whose members can get _too_ self-inflated on the leadership issue) but the committees, clerks and volunteers that get most of the work done from the local to national levels. We are the inheritors of a proud and sometimes foolish tradition and our actions are shaping its future but I don’t think we really know that. I have no clever solution to the issues I’ve outlined here but I think becoming conscious that we’re creating our own legacy is an important first step.
For other uses, see Light (disambiguation)
March 21, 2007
Even though my last post was a five minute quickie, it generated a number of comments. One question that came up was how aware individual Friends are about the specific Quaker meanings of some of the common English words we use — “Light,” “Spirit,” etc.(disambiguation in Wiki-speak). Marshall Massey expressed sadness that the terms were used uncomprehendingly and I suggested that some Friends knowingly confuse the generic and specific meanings. Marshall replied that if this were so it might be a cultural difference based on geography.
If it’s a cultural difference, I suspect it’s less geographic than functional. I was speaking of the class of professional Friends (heavy in my parts) who purposefully obscure their language. We’re very good at talking in a way that sounds Quaker to those who do know our specific language but that sounds generically spiritual to those who don’t. Sometimes this obscurantism is used by people who are repelled by traditional Quakerism but want to advance their ideas in the Religious Society of Friends, but more often (and more dangerously) it’s used by Friends who know and love what we are but are loathe to say anything that might sound controversial.
I’ve told the story before of a Friend and friend who said that everytime he uses the word community he’s meaning the body of Christ. Newcomers hearing him and reading his articles could be forgiven for thinking that community is our reason-for-being, indeed: what we worship. The problem is that ten years later, they’ll have signed up and built up an identity as a Friend and will get all offended when someone suggests that this community they know and love is really the body of Christ.
Liberal Friends in the public eye need to be more honest in their conversation about the Biblical and Christian roots of our religious fellowship. That will scare off potential members who have been scarred by the acts of those who have falsely claimed Christ. I’m sorry about that and we need to be as gentle and humble about this as we can. But hopefully they’ll see the fruits of the true spirit in our openness, our warmth and our giving and will realize that Christian fellowship is not about televangelists and Presidential hypocrites. Maybe they’ll eventually join or maybe not, but if they do at least they won’t be surprised by our identity. Before someone comments back, I’m not saying that Christianity needs to be a test for individual membership but new members should know that everything from our name (“Friends of Christ”) on down are rooted in that tradition and that that formal membership does not include veto power over our public identity.
There is room out there for spiritual-but-not-religious communities that aren’t built around a collective worship of God, don’t worry about any particular tradition and focus their energies and group identity on liberal social causes. But I guess part of what I wonder is why this doesn’t collect under the UUA banner, whose Principles and Purposes statement is already much more syncretistic and post-religious than even the most liberal yearly meeting. Evolving into the “other UUA” would mean abandoning most of the valuable spiritual wisdom we have as a people.
I think there’s a need for the kind of strong liberal Christianity that Friends have practiced for 350 years. There must be millions of people parked on church benches every Sunday morning looking up at the pulpit and thinking to themselves, “surely this isn’t what Jesus was talking about.” Look, we have Evangelical Christians coming out against the war! And let’s face it, it’s only a matter of time before “Emergent Christians” realize how lame all that post-post candle worship is and look for something a little deeper. The times are ripe for “Opportunities,” Friends. We have important knowledge to share about all this. It would be a shame if we kept quiet.
Working with Pipes #2: A DIY personalized community with Del.icio.us, Flickr and Google Blog Search
March 17, 2007
It’s
not necessary to develop your own Web 2.0 software infrastructure to
create an independent Web 2.0‑powered community online. It’s far
simpler to set a standard for your community to use on exisiting
networks and then to use Yahoo Pipes to pull it together.
I decided on about a dozen categories to use with my DIY blog aggregator (QuakerQuaker).
I only want to pull in posts that are being generated for my site by
community members so we use a community identifier, a unique prefix
that isn’t likely to be used by others.
This post will show you how to pull in tagged feeds from three sources: the Del.icio.us social bookmarking system, the Flickr photo sharing site and Google Blog Search.
Step 1: Pick a community designator
I’ve been using the community name followed by a dot. The prefix
goes in front of category description to make a set of unique tags for
the aggregator. When someone wants to add something for the site they
tag it with this “community.category” tag. In my example, when someone
wants to list a new Quaker blog they use “quaker.blog”, “quaker” being
the community name, “blog” being the category name for the “New Blogs”
page.
Step 2: Collect the community prefix and category name in Pipes

You begin by going into Pipes and pulling over two text inputs: one for
the community prefix, the other for the specific category.
Step 3: Construct these into tags

Now use the “String Concatenation” module to turn this into the
“community.category” model. The community input goes into the top slot,
a dot is the second slot and the category input goes into the last slot.
Now, when you have a tag in Flickr with a dot in it, Flickr automatically removes it in the resultant RSS feed.
So with Flickr you want your tag to be “communitycategory” without a
dot. Simple enough: just pull another “String Concatenation” module
onto your Pipes work space. It should look the same except that it
won’t have the middle slot with the dot.
Step 4: Turn these tags into RSS URLs

Pull three “URLBuilder” modules into Pipes, one for each of the
services we’re going to query. For the Base, use the non-tag specific
part of the URL that each service uses for its RSS feeds. Here they are:
| Del.icio.us | http://del.icio.us/rss/tag |
| Flickr | http://api.flickr.com/services/feeds |
| Google Blog Search | http://blogsearch.google.com |
Under path elements, put the correct tag: for Del.icio.us and Google it should be the community.category tag, for Flickr the dot-less communitycategory tag.
Step 5: Fetch and Dedupe
Fetch is the Pipes module that pulls in URLs and outputs RSS feeds. It can also combine them. Send each URLBuilder output into the same Fetch routine.
Since it’s possible that you’ll might have duplicate posts, use the “Unique” module to deduplicate entries by URL.
Through a little trial and error I’ve determined that in cases of
duplicates, feeds lower in the Fetch list trump those higher. In the
actual Pipe powering my aggregator I pull a second Del.icio.us feed: my
own. I have that as the last entry in the Fetch list so that I can
personally override every other input.
Step 6: Sort by Date

With experimentation it seems like Pipes orders the output entries by
descending date, which is probably what you want. But I want to show
how Pipes can work with “dc” data, the “Dublin Core” model that allows
you to extend standard RSS feeds (see yesterday’s post for more on this).
Google Blog Search and Del.icio.us feeds use the “dc:date” field to
record the time when the post was made. Flickr uses “dc:date.Taken” to
pass on the photograph’s metadata about when it was taken. Pipes’
“Rename” module lets you copy both fields into one you create (I’ve
simply used “date”), which you can then run through its “Sort” module.
Again, it’s a moot point since Pipes seems to do this automatically.
But it’s good to know how to manipulate and rename “dc” data if only
because many PHP parsers have trouble laying it out on a webpage.
Update: it’s all moot: according to a ZDNet blog, “Pipes now automatically appends a pubDate tag to any RSS feed that has any of the other allowable date tags.” This is nice: no need to hack the date every time you want to make a Pipe!
Step 7: Output
The final step for any Pipe is the “Pipe Output” module.
In action
You can see this published Pipe here, and copy and play with it yourself. The result lets you build an RSS feed based on the two inputs.
Call off the search parties
March 10, 2007
The retreat at the Carmelite Monastery was nice. Here’s some pictures, the first of those “long-remembered”:/if_i_dont_make_it_back.php tall stone walls and the rest of the beautiful chapel:

It was a silent retreat – for us at least. There were three talks about “Teresa of Avila”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_of_Avila given by Father Tim Byerley, who also works with the “Collegium Center”:http://www.collegiumcenter.org/about.php, a kind of religious education outreach project for young adult Catholics in South Jersey (I mentioned it “a few months ago”:https://www.quakerranter.org/teaching_quakerism_again.php as a model of young adult youth outreach that Friends might want to consider). Much of what Teresa has to say about prayer is universal and very applicable to Friends, though I have to admit I started spacing out by around the fourth mansion of the “Interior Castle”:http://www.ccel.org/ccel/teresa/castle2.toc.html (I’ve never been good with numbered religious steps!).
I’m in no danger of following my wife Julie’s journey from Friends to Catholicism, though as always I very much enjoyed being in the midst of a gathered group committed to a spirituality. The idea of religious life as self-abnegation is an important one for all Christians in an age where “me-ism”:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScWdek6_Ids&eurl has become the “secular state religion”:http://www.walmart.com/ and I hope to return to it in the near future.