[EVALUATION] - E04 - Leadership! Google, Guido van Rossum, PSF

[Martin P. Hellwig]

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
> Martin P. Hellwig wrote:
>> Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
>> <cut>
>> I'm suspecting that we have different definitions (or at least the 
>> implications of that) of used terms.
>> I think it's important to first define these definition in a form 
>> acceptable to both of us.
>>
>> In the link you gave, the title was "Efficiency Management".
>> Now I believe that in _most_ implementations the words in the titles 
>> are mutual exclusive. So my first question is, please define 
>> "Efficiency" my second one is, please define "Management".
> 
> "
>     *  The terminology is not yet aligned to commonly used business or 
> standards organisation terminology [like e.g. ISO].
>     * This will happen after the process definition has finalized.
> "
> source: http://lazaridis.com/efficiency/process.html (V 0.8c - alpha)
> 
> -
> 
> I am a few steps from having the final diagramms ready, then I can align 
> the terminology (e.g. asking for feedback, thus people can detect 
> existent constructs and suggest terminology changes)
> 
> I'll send you an email with some details (thus we don't discuss this 
> off-topic in public).
> 
> .
> 
 > Ilias Lazaridis wrote in email:
 > Hi,
 >
 > just point me to a website you are related to (your personal one, 
your business one, ...) and I'll initialize the process, as defined in 
the draft-document:
 >
 > http://lazaridis.com/efficiency/textual.html
 >
 > -
 >
 > What I need at this point:
 >
 > - Website adress
 > - your requirements & constraints for my processing
 >
 > .
 >

Hey,

I respond on your "private" mail and list in one and to both, I don't 
regard this as off-topic because it is still in regard of your OP, 
although that post can be seen as a bait to go OT.

I didn't ask you for making an analyze, I asked you for your definitions 
because I think they are not the same as used in my contexts.

Now definitions like the ones in the dictionary are all fine and such 
but it still doesn't say what the strings are, for example communication 
is a word used to describe the process of information transfer (by 
whatever means, could be smoke signals or drum sounds for my part).
Information transfer is a broad term raising immediately the question: 
"Transfer? ..... In what direction?"
The answer depends on the situation, if both parties are equal in terms 
of information authority, the transfer will resemble a dialog i.e. two way.
If both parties are not on par in terms of information authority, the 
transfer will resemble a monolog i.e. one way.
Now this is taken in the extremes, in reality there are usual more than 
2 parties and the information authority can vary on the subject while 
the subjects are still related with each other (no wonder why there is 
so much miscommunication).

An interesting note is that to describe the relation of communication I 
have to use another term, "information authority", this term is IMHO 
very important and very difficult because you can not define this term 
in such a way that it's  acceptable for all involving parties without 
being authoritative on that specific information piece. Unfortunately 
these kind of situations are all but rare just take a look at 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootstrap .

Which leads to the interesting question, when is someone authoritative 
on information without the use of ipsedixitism.
The answer is IMO actually quite simple: Never, your only authoritative 
if others accept you as being authoritative, of course this can be 
enforced by various means, like the use of hierarchy or religion.
However more modern organization revert to the use of democracy 
(everybody has an equal vote) or play along (if you don't like, you are 
not enforced to stay, so accept it or beat it)  because  if you let 
people decide for them self who is authoritative for them it's easier 
for that authority to be accepted as such.

Now I don't say that I'm right here and you are not, actually I'm still 
puzzled about what your intention of your original post was anyway.
Thus what I said above should also apply to myself, so I do not have the 
authority by myself to say that I'm authoritative to say that I'm right 
and you are not, but what are your reasons to assume that you are 
authoritative over me? (This is a genuine question and not intended as 
rhetorical)

So the sum it up my unanswered question to you so far are:
- What is your definition of "Efficiency"
- What is your definition of "Management"
- What is you definition of "Communication" (to compare it with mine above)
- What are your reasons that I should accept you as authoritative on the 
subject of "Efficiency Management"?
- What has all that to do with Python except for that Guido is related 
to Google and Python?

-- 
mph