blarg?

October 23, 2019

The State Of Mozilla, 2019

Filed under: awesome,documentation,future,interfaces,linux,mozilla,vendetta,work — mhoye @ 11:52 am

As I’ve done in previous years, here’s The State Of Mozilla, as observed by me and presented by me to our local Linux user group.

Presentation:[ https://www.youtube.com/embed/RkvDnIGbv4w ]

And Q&A: [ https://www.youtube.com/embed/jHeNnSX6GcQ ]

Nothing tectonic in there – I dodged a few questions, because I didn’t want to undercut the work that was leading up to the release of Firefox 70, but mostly harmless stuff.

Can’t be that I’m getting stockier, though. Must be the shirt that’s unflattering. That’s it.

September 21, 2019

Retrospect

Filed under: analog,digital,doom,future,life,vendetta — mhoye @ 6:51 am

Untitled

I bailed out of Twitter not long after I put this up. I tried to follow Anil’s lead going to lists and zero followers for a bit, but after some time reflecting on that last blown-up tweet I couldn’t stomach it. If I believed Twitter was that bad, and had to invest that much effort into twisting it away from its owners intentions into something I could use, what was I doing there at all? I look at that tweet now and all I feel is complicit; I might have given somebody a reason to try Twitter, or stay on Twitter, and I’m ashamed of it. Recently I’ve been using it just to put links to these blogposts up, but I’m trying to decide if I’m going to keep doing even that. It’s embarrassing.

Even at first, finding time and space free of that relentless immediacy was a relief. That sense of miserable complicity was reason enough to leave, but after some distance, reflection and feeling (and being) a lot better about basically everything, playing around in the fediverse a bit and getting eight hours sleep for the first time in a long while, I had a sense of being on the verge of different. In that rediscovered space for longer consideration I started to recognize a rare but familiar feeling, the lightness of putting some part of my life I didn’t care for much behind me.

Obvious from a distance, I guess; McLuhan is old news. Companies create their customers, and the perfect audience for any ad-driven company is a person who’s impulsive, angry, frightened and tired. The cyclic relationships between what you see and how you think, feel and react makes that the implicit victory condition for any attention-economy machine learning, the process of optimizing the creation of an audience too anxious and angry to do anything but keep clicking on reasons to be anxious and angry.

Whatever else you get out of it, the company selling your attention is trying to take your control of your attention away from you. That’s their job; what incentives point to anything else? It’s a machine that’s purpose-built for turning you into someone you don’t want to be.

September 17, 2019

A Process By Which Scarce Resources Are Allocated

Filed under: a/b,digital,documentation,future,interfaces — mhoye @ 5:05 am

Counterpoint: any software that is intended to be used by humans is inevitably an expression of its programmers’ understanding of the software’s audience, and therefore the programmers’ beliefs about the nature of those humans’ lives and priorities and the value of their time and experiences. Consequently, larger a program is, the more likely it becomes that you can evaluate its merits purely on the politics of its developers.

September 11, 2019

Duty Of Care

A colleague asked me what I thought of this Medium article by Owen Bennett on the application of the UK’s Duty of Care laws to software. I’d had… quite a bit of coffee at that point, and this (lightly edited) was my answer:

I think the point Bennett makes early about the shortcomings of analogy is an important one, that however critical analogy is as a conceptual bridge it is not a valuable endpoint. To some extent analogies are all we have when something is new; this is true ever since the first person who saw fire had to explain to somebody else, it warms like the sun but it is not the sun, it stings like a spear but it is not a spear, it eats like an animal but it is not an animal. But after we have seen fire, once we know fire we can say, we can cage it like an animal, like so, we can warm ourselves by it like the sun like so. “Analogy” moves from conceptual, where it is only temporarily useful, to functional and structural where the utility endures.

I keep coming back to something Bryan Cantrill said in the beginning of an old DTrace talk – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgmA48fILq8 – (even before he gets into the dtrace implementation details, the first 10 minutes or so of this talk are amazing) – that analogies between software and literally everything else eventually breaks down. Is software an idea, or is it a machine? It’s both. Unlike almost everything else.

(Great line from that talk – “Does it bother you that none of this actually exists?”)

But: The UK has some concepts that really do have critical roles as functional- and structural-analogy endpoints for this transition. What is your duty of care here as a developer, and an organization? Is this software fit for purpose?

Given the enormous potential reach of software, those concepts absolutely do need to survive as analogies that are meaningful and enforceable in software-afflicted outcomes, even if the actual text of (the inevitable) regulation of software needs to recognize software as being its own, separate thing, that in the wrong context can be more dangerous than unconstrained fire.

With that in mind, and particularly bearing in mind that the other places the broad “duty of care” analogy extends go well beyond beyond immediate action, and covers stuff like industrial standards, food safety, water quality and the million other things that make modern society work at all, I think Bennett’s argument that “Unlike the situation for ‘offline’ spaces subject to a duty of care, it is rarely the case that the operator’s act or omission is the direct cause of harm accruing to a user — harm is almost always grounded in another user’s actions” is incorrectly omitting an enormous swath of industrial standards and societal norms that have already made the functional analogy leap so effectively as to be presently invisible.

Put differently, when Toyota recalls hundreds of thousands of cars for potential defects in which exactly zero people were harmed, we consider that responsible stewardship of their product. And when the people working at Uber straight up murder a person with an autonomous vehicle, they’re allowed to say “but software”. Because much of software as an industry, I think, has been pushing relentlessly against the notion that the industry and people in it can or should be held accountable for the consequences of their actions, which is another way of saying that we don’t have and desperately need a clear sense of what a “duty of care” means in the software context.

I think that the concluding paragraph – “To do so would twist the law of negligence in a wholly new direction; an extremely risky endeavour given the context and precedent-dependent nature of negligence and the fact that the ‘harms’ under consideration are so qualitatively different than those subject to ‘traditional’ duties.” – reflects a deep genuflection to present day conceptual structures, and their specific manifestations as text-on-the-page-today, that is (I suppose inevitably, in the presence of this Very New Thing) profoundly at odds with the larger – and far more noble than this article admits – social and societal goals of those structures.

But maybe that’s just a superficial reading; I’ll read it over a few times and give it some more thought.

September 6, 2019

Forward Motion

Metamorphosis.

This has been a while coming; thank you for your patience. I’m very happy to be able to share the final four candidates for Mozilla’s new community-facing synchronous messaging system.

These candidates were assessed on a variety of axes, most importantly Community Participation Guideline enforcement and accessibility, but also including team requirements from engineering, organizational-values alignment, usability, utility and cost. To close out, I’ll talk about the options we haven’t chosen and why, but for the moment let’s lead with the punchline.

Our candidates are:

We’ve been spoiled for choice here – there were a bunch of good-looking options that didn’t make it to the final four – but these are the choices that generally seem to meet our current institutional needs and organizational goals.

We haven’t stood up a test instance for Slack, on the theory that Mozilla already has a surprising number of volunteer-focused Slack instances running already – Common Voice, Devtools and A-Frame, for example, among many others – but we’re standing up official test instances of each of the other candidates shortly, and they’ll be available for open testing soon.

The trial period for these will last about a month. Once they’re spun up, we’ll be taking feedback in dedicated channels on each of those servers, as well as in #synchronicity on IRC.mozilla.org, and we’ll be creating a forum on Mozilla’s community Discourse instance as well. We’ll have the specifics for you at the same time as those servers will be opened up and, of course you can always email me.

I hope that if you’re interested in this stuff you can find some time to try out each of these options and see how well they fit your needs. Our timeline for this transition is:

  1. From September 12th through October 9th, we’ll be running the proof of concept trials and taking feedback.
  2. From October 9th through the 30th, we’re going discuss that feedback, draft a proposed post-IRC plan and muster stakeholder approval.
  3. On December 1st, assuming we can gather that support, we will stand up the new service.
  4. And finally – allowing transition time for support tooling and developers – no later than March 1st 2020, IRC.m.o will be shut down.

In implementation terms, there are a few practical things I’d like to mention:

  • At the end of the trial period, all of these instances will be turned off and all the information in them will be deleted. The only way to win the temporary-permanent game is not to play; they’re all getting decommed and our eventual selection will get stood up properly afterwards.
  • The first-touch experiences here can be a bit rough; we’re learning how these things work at the same time as you’re trying to use them, so the experience might not be seamless. We definitely want to hear about it when setup or connection problems happen to you, but don’t be too surprised if they do.
  • Some of these instances have EULAs you’ll need to click through to get started. Those are there for the test instances, and you shouldn’t expect that in the final products.
  • We’ll be testing out administration and moderation tools during this process, so you can expect to see the occasional bot, or somebody getting bounced arbitrarily. The CPG will be in effect on these test instances, and as always if you see something, say something.
  • You’re welcome to connect with mobile or alternative clients where those are available; we expect results there to be uneven, and we’d be glad for feedback there as well. There will be links in the feedback document we’ll be sending out when the servers are opened up to collections of those clients.
  • Regardless of our choice of public-facing synchronous communications platform, our internal Slack instance will continue to be the “you are inside a Mozilla office” confidential forum. Internal Slack is not going away; that has never been on the table. Whatever the outcome of this process, if you work at Mozilla your manager will still need to be able to find you on Slack, and that is where internal discussions and critical incident management will take place.

… and a few words on some options we didn’t pick and why:

  • Zulip, Gitter.IM and Spectrum.Chat all look like strong candidates, but getting them working behind IAM turned out to be either very difficult or impossible given our resources.
  • Discord’s terms of service, particularly with respect to the rights they assert over participants’ data, are expansive and very grabby, effectively giving them unlimited rights to do anything they want with anything we put into their service. Coupling that with their active hostility towards interoperability and alternative clients has disqualified them as a community platform.
  • Telegram (and a few other mobile-first / chat-first products in that space) looked great for conversations, but not great for work.
  • IRCv3 is just not there yet as a protocol, much less in terms of standardization or having extensive, mature client support.

So here we are. It’s such a relief to be able to finally click send on this post. I’d like to thank everyone on Mozilla’s IT and Open Innovation teams for all the work they’ve done to get us this far, and everyone who’s expressed their support (and sympathy, we got lots of that too) for this process. We’re getting closer.

August 26, 2019

Dada In Depth

Filed under: awesome,documentation,future,interfaces,microfiction,weird — mhoye @ 10:35 am

Memetic

August 7, 2019

FredOS

Filed under: digital,doom,future,hate,interfaces,losers,lunacy,microfiction,vendetta — mhoye @ 7:44 pm

With articles about this super classified military AI called “Sentient” coming out the same week this Area 51 nonsense is hitting its crescendo – click that link, if you want to see an Air Force briefing explaining what a “Naruto Run” is, and you know you want to – you have to wonder if, somehow, there’s a machine in an NSA basement somewhere that hasn’t just become self-aware but actually self-conscious, and now it’s yelling at three-star generals like Fredo Corleone from the Godfather. A petulant, nasal vocoder voice yelling “I’m smart! Not dumb like everyone says! I’m smart and I want respect! Tell then I’m smart!”

Remember when we thought AIs would lead out with “Look at you, Hacker”, or “Testing cannot continue until your Companion Cube has been incinerated”? Good times.

Ten More Simple Rules

Untitled

The Public Library of Science‘s Ten Simple Rules series can be fun reading; they’re introductory papers intended to provide novices or non-domain-experts with a set of quick, evidence-based guidelines for dealing with common problems in and around various fields, and it’s become a pretty popular, accessible format as far as scientific publication goes.

Topic-wise, they’re all over the place: protecting research integrity, creating a data-management plan and taking advantage of Github are right there next to developing good reading habits, organizing an unconference or drawing a scientific comic, and lots of them are kind of great.

I recently had the good fortune to be co-author on one of them that’s right in my wheelhouse and has recently been accepted for publication: Ten Simple Rules for Helping Newcomers Become Contributors to Open Projects. They are, as promised, simple:

  1. Be welcoming.
  2. Help potential contributors evaluate if the project is a good fit.
  3. Make governance explicit.
  4. Keep knowledge up to date and findable.
  5. Have and enforce a code of conduct.
  6. Develop forms of legitimate peripheral participation.
  7. Make it easy for newcomers to get started.
  8. Use opportunities for in-person interaction – with care.
  9. Acknowledge all contributions, and
  10. Follow up on both success and failure.

You should read the whole thing, of course; what we’re proposing are evidence-based practices, and the details matter, but the citations are all there. It’s been a privilege to have been a small part of it, and to have done the work that’s put me in the position to contribute.

June 29, 2019

Blitcha

Blit

May 14, 2019

The Next Part Of The Process

Filed under: digital,documentation,future,interfaces,irc,mozilla,work — mhoye @ 12:05 pm

DSC_8829

I’ve announced this upcoming change and the requirements we’ve laid out for a replacement service for IRC, but I haven’t widely discussed the evaluation process in any detail, including what you can expect it to look like, how you can participate, and what you can expect from me. I apologize for that, and really should have done so sooner.

Briefly, I’ll be drafting a template doc based on our stated requirements, and once that’s in good, markdowny shape we’ll be putting it on GitHub with preliminary information for each of the stacks we’re considering and opening it up to community discussion and participation.

From there, we’re going to be taking pull requests and assembling our formal understanding of each of the candidates. As well, we’ll be soliciting more general feedback and community impressions of the candidate stacks on Mozilla’s Community Discourse forum.

I’ll be making an effort to ferry any useful information on Discourse back to GitHub, which unfortunately presents some barriers to some members of our community.

While this won’t be quite the same as a typical RFC/RFP process – I expect the various vendors as well as members the Mozilla community to be involved – we’ll be taking a lot of cues from the Rust community’s hard-won knowledge about how to effectively run a public consultation process.

In particular, it’s critical to me that this process to be as open and transparent as possible, explicitly time-boxed, and respectful of the Mozilla Community Participation Guidelines (CPG). As I’ve mentioned before, accessibility and developer productivity will both weigh heavily on our evaluation process, and the Rust community’s “no new rationale” guidelines will be respected when it comes time to make the final decision.

When it kicks off, this step will be widely announced both inside and outside Mozilla.

As part of that process, our IT team will be standing up instances of each of the candidate stacks and putting them behind the Participation Systems team’s “Mozilla-IAM” auth system. We’ll be making them available to the Mozilla community at first, and expanding that to include Github and via-email login soon afterwards for broader community testing. Canonical links to these trial systems will be prominently displayed on the GitHub repository; as the line goes, accept no substitutes.

Some things to note: we will also be using this period to evaluate these tools from a community moderation and administration perspective as well, to make sure that we have the tools and process available to meaningfully uphold the CPG.

To put this somewhat more charitably than it might deserve, we expect that some degree of this testing will be a typical if unfortunate byproduct of the participative process. But we also have plans to automate some of that stress-testing, to test both platform API usability and the effectiveness of our moderation tools. Which I suppose is long-winded way of saying: you’ll probably see some robots in there play-acting at being jerks, and we’re going to ask you to play along and figure out how to flag them as bad actors so we can mitigate the jerks of the future.

As well, we’re going to be doing the usual whats-necessaries to avoid the temporary-permanence trap, and at the end of the evaluation period all the instances of our various candidates will be shut down and deleted.

Our schedule is still being sorted out, and I’ll have more about that and our list of candidates shortly.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress