Re: Request for feedback on 'lobbying' paper

[David Kastrup]

Janek Warchoł <address@hidden> writes:

> 2013/4/22 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
>
>> Reality check.
>>
>> _Nobody_ is writing a single line of code related to MusicXML.
>> Nobody is trying to see how much work it would be to consolidate some
>> of the MusicXML work from the Philomelos guys back into LilyPond
>> proper.  Nobody is feeling responsible for the current MusicXML
>> infrastructure and nobody is working on any forward-looking work.
>>
>> [...]
>
> Technically speaking, you are 100% correct.  I agree that talking
> doesn't get the job done, and i understand the frustration when
> someone reminds you about an issue that you remember very well but
> don't have time to tackle.

It's not just that "I don't have time".  It is that there is a bunch of
related issues I'd rather see tackled previously.  I prefer working with
sensible tools on sensible tasks.  And nobody is interested in anything
beyond talking about MusicXML.  And the talk grows increasingly
ambitious without a single line of code being written or even planned.

> However, could you say thins in a manner that is encouraging rather
> than discouraging?

Encouraging what?

> It is a fact that there is more work than we have resources available,
> and it will probably always be so.  We cannot do everything at once.

That's just smokescreen.  Of course "we" can do everything at once that
"we" work on.  If someone chooses MusicXML as his project, he can make
progress on it largely independently from the progress other people make
on their respective projects.

The point is that nobody has chosen MusicXML as his project.  And
pretending differently will not change this.

> What we can do is help new contributors; for example, i suggest to
> review http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1367
>
> As for Urs' involvement, i'd say one thing: there are many ways of
> moving things forward and not all of them involve writing code.

Sure.  But we are in the situation of promoting participation in a race
without anybody bothering about minor details like axles or wheels.
Yes, it's nice that we have an engine in our basement and it is working
fabulously for powering our house.

> A musicologist may search for sponsors and spread the word among
> publishers, and Urs is doing exactly that.  Sure, eventually someone
> needs to write the code.

But what word are we spreading?  "Can it work with our existing scores
and data, possibly through MusicXML?"  "No, but if it could, it would
likely be the best at it."

I'm obviously ill-suited for the advertising profession since I am
missing some basic tenets that actually are what makes advertising a
profession in its own right rather than merely a by-product of good
engineering.

But in the end, we need to sell a product.  Selling LilyPond with
vaporware MusicXML does not make sense if we want people to start a
migration towards LilyPond: they need the good MusicXML import to
_start_ the migration and won't need it afterwards.

Selling LilyPond with vaporware MusicXML makes only sense if we want to
hook people on LilyPond with the promise that they can take their scores
into other products eventually.  And that promise only makes sense if
managing the scores with LilyPond is advantageous over managing the
scores with whatever is supposed to read its MusicXML in the end.
Because otherwise they could just use what is supposed to handle the
final typesetting anyway.

-- 
David Kastrup