I knew we had come to a consensus so I didn’t worry too much, but 10 days is simply inexcusable!

As to “harsh,” that sounds cool, it was one of the 2 interpretations that I had given it (and the one I preferred and hoped you’d meant), but I still let the stress of trying to finish the semester make my own reply harsher than it might have been.

Ah, “tone;” we both may have missed the mark on that one just a tad.

I fully agree technology has progressed quite a lot and that it should be easier to say “Yes” nowadays than in the past. And I think that things requiring technology should get a “Yes” as often as anything else. Of course, my (perhaps far) broader view of what constitutes “technology” has some impact on the fact that I think all ideas should get a “Yes” where and when appropriate. I, personally, just feel that at least some questions need to be asked first. Certainly not all questions that need asking, and certainly not even questions designed to quash the idea, but a basic feel for what’s needed, why, where it fits in the mission and priorities.

I’m not sure I have my mind around the whole “slow library” thing yet, but it certainly has me enamored, as does the idea of “zero-tech library 2.0 solutions.”

So I guess that in the end we really do pretty much agree, although, perhaps, we are using a couple words with slightly broader or narrower meanings, but not enough to prevent us from communicating.

I apologize for my harshness the 2nd time around. I did not intend it, but it crept in nonetheless. I look forward to meeting you sometime and buying the 1st round. And, well, the 2nd for taking so long to get back to you.

Best,

Mark

I am a service guy AND I do not see myself as a library 2.0 tech rah-rah sort. My thing is “slow library.” And “zero-tech library 2.0 solutions.”

But I do think the slow library and zero tech stuff ought to include an attitude that makes techies feel encouraged to constantly provide innovative ideas.

First, I apologize for having called you “harsh.” My intention was not to paint you in an unreasonable light. What I really meant was “my harshest critic” which — to me — the person with the harshest (maybe even read “strongest” there) criticism of my view. My thinking on this was to go by the rule that if you can sway your harshest critic, then you can sway most everyone else. I was therefore addressing “my harshest critic” which (this time) just happened to have a name (you).

Beyond that, I was not trying to antagonize, really. I was being rhetorical and argumentative, but the intention wasn’t ridicule. Perhaps the tone of my writing should have been better.

Re: “There are times when implementing the latest toy is not the sensible thing. If I already evaluated it, tried it, and it did not work, I should feel free to say so without someone else telling me “you just don’t get it.” Period. End of story.”

There is little in this with which I do not disagree. But I will say that there are alot of “out of the box” products (read Drupal and Joomla) that aren’t very attractive at first and do need the required experimentation time to capture people’s imagination.

And I never say “you just don’t get it.” Never never never. All I am saying is that I think most technology has changed from a high-learning curve, high-cost, marginal-value service to a relatively low-cost, moderate learning curve, valuable service. In that vein, we should say “yes” to technology alot more frequently then we do.

I say even go as far as saying “yes” to the point that you are willing to read a one-page brief on the project, do a bit a Googling and have a conversation that asks some really hard questions. Then, you consider this on the list of priorities. Maybe it’s 569,209. If so, then file the one-pager under “future ideas” (there’s no harm in having the results of someone’s brainchild sitting in reserve for later). You guys don’t think so — that’s fair. But you can’t blame me for asserting my view to the public and responding to criticism.

Oh and I am 11 years of library service and only 2 years in library technology (service). So, I’m not all “library 2.0 rah-rah” really.

One of the things I asked was if it really as has to be organizational culture problems as Mr. Deschamps points out. Just because it may be a no-brainer for some, it does not follow it has to be for everyone. Of course, pointing that out can be a sin in some circles. As Ms. Macaulay points out, techies just not be getting special treatment. Open mindedness and a willingness to take risks? Absolutely? An automatic blank check in the form of “just say yes”? Nope. Mr. Deschamps does say that one should say yes and look then at any model/proposal/etc. However, I am not one to agree that if it fails you store it for later. Sure, in a tech driven world, a solution may come along the corner. A bust can come around the corner as well. It failed, move on, try something else and learn from the mistake. Overall, he wrote a good post in spite of the little issue of expecting an automatic “yay.”

For me, the question is always one of impact and support. You can want all the technology and widgets in the world. Without the resources (financial, staff, space, etc.), it simply won’t happen. This does not make the ones who say no due to such restraints into bad people or luddites, contrary to what some 2.0 evangelists may say. I have seen my share of what seemed excellent ideas falter because the resources were not there, or it was just not right for our demographic/patrons. There are times when implementing the latest toy is not the sensible thing. If I already evaluated it, tried it, and it did not work, I should feel free to say so without someone else telling me “you just don’t get it.” Period. End of story. That is the detail the 2.0 evangelists often forget in their enthusiasm, and it is a question that Ms. Macaulay raises so well.

Anyhow, this is more than I would usually say on anything like this.

Best, and keep on blogging.

But it is not (necessarily) directly related to technology. Sure, some folks automatically say no to anything involving technology and I agree that that is completely wrong. In fact, it may even be unethical. But some people just say no to pretty much anything, even if the resources exist and are available.

I lived this life for a couple years and it literally almost killed me. And, no, this was not the Army. It was in a library.

But you have, again, said it eloquently. No ideas from any particular quarter should get special treatment of any kind, whether it is an automatic yes or an automatic no. There are always individual circumstances and situations of budget, people with constantly crazy ideas, people with well thought out ideas, etc. that may make a case-by-case difference with the end result that certain people get told yes (or no) more often than others. But that should only be based on these kinds of issues and not because they are a techie or a whatever.

I guess the original post bothered me because I don’t believe that techie ideas should be given any type of special treatment. Does the technology really matter? If the idea is worthy, we should implement independent of the technology. I will admit that I am lucky enough to work in a place where techie ideas are not turned down due to their technology. I guess that this is partly because I am the one who supports all technology, so that my reaction to a techie project will probably have a good deal of impact on whether it is implemented or not. It must be frustrating to work in places that do shut down people’s ideas because of technology – and in this case, I can see why people might argue that conversations should start with a yes.