- Requesting Comments for Process Definition and Presentatio


#1

comp.lang.python / comp.lang.ruby

I would like to ask for feedback on the Process Definition and
Presentation.

Essentially this is exactly what I’ve myself specialized to do.

But I cannot apply the process to my own system.

I ask here, as I have criticized those 2 groups publically - and would
like to give the possibility to reverse the criticism - again
publically.

Please simply visit

http//:lazaridis.com

what do you like?

what do you dislike?

are there points that you do not understand?

do you have any suggestions for terminology changes?

do you have any other suggestion (marketing, presentation, etc.)?

You can use private email, the anonymous contact-form on the website and
of course this medium here (c.l.p / c.l.r).

Your feedback is very important to me.

Greetings!


#2

Ilias L. wrote:

what do you dislike?

are there points that you do not understand?

What is the goal of your posting and the intended purpose of
http://lazaridis.com ???
I can’t see anything at this site what would make sense to me.

Claudio


#3

i too am none the wiser after looking at your site:

"Status

The services are available for initial Reference Customers.
Preferred Domains: Software-Development-Systems.
Preferred Projects: Open Source.

Profile

Lazaridis ReEngineering is a lightweight startup which has developed a
System Reengineering Method, based on the pragmatically defined
Independent Efficiency Management Process.

The provided services apply the Method remotely to different Systems,
with a specialization on Software Production Systems like e.g. Large
Scale Open-Source Projects or Software Companies".

The flowchart reveals nothing either.


#4

Claudio Grondi wrote:

what do you like?

what do you dislike?

are there points that you do not understand?

What is the goal of your posting

a) to retrieve feedback subjecting the website in general

b) to retrieve feedback subjecting the Process Definition itself
(content of diagramms, clarity, terminology etc.)

http://lazaridis.com/efficiency/graph/index.html

and the intended purpose of http://lazaridis.com ???

The purpose of the website is:

a) to present the company
b) to present the reengineering services
c) to present the process which is used to reengineer systems.
d) to present some of the results (e.g. public evaluations, evaluation
cases etc.)
e) to present the research work (how the process has been developed)
f) to attract inital customers (no reference customers available yet)

I can’t see anything at this site what would make sense to me.

you mean, you don’t understand anything?

so, we have no starting point.

And it seems I’ve many work to do.

Your feedback is very important to me.

Greetings!


#5

simonh wrote:

i too am none the wiser after looking at your site:

I’ve documented everything very clear…

But as it looks just for myself.

Seems to become a huge problem, as I fail to rephrase this:

"Status

The services are available for initial Reference Customers.

services available = I’m not busy with a task.

There are currently no Reference Customers available (showcase for the
work I’ve done)

Preferred Domains: Software-Development-Systems.
Preferred Projects: Open Source.

I would preferred to apply the services to software-development tools
which are produced with open-source projects.

Profile

Lazaridis ReEngineering is a lightweight startup which has developed a
System Reengineering Method, based on the pragmatically defined
Independent Efficiency Management Process.

reading this here… it sounds somehow strange.

The provided services apply the Method remotely to different Systems,
with a specialization on Software Production Systems like e.g. Large
Scale Open-Source Projects or Software Companies".

and this sounds strange, too.

The flowchart reveals nothing either.


#6

Ilias L. wrote:

I ask here, as I have criticized those 2 groups publically - and would
what do you dislike?
of course this medium here (c.l.p / c.l.r).

Your feedback is very important to me.

Greetings!

Hi Ilias,

I like the overall style of your site - clean layout, good colour
scheme - but there are a number of spelling and grammar errors, (eg.
‘diagrams’ not ‘diagramms’, and the past participle of ‘feed’ is ‘fed’
not ‘feeded’), which stand out to a native English speaker.

Also, your Usenet posting style is quite terse, almost like bullet
points, and your site reflects this (IMHO). Flow-charts and bulleted
lists certainly have their place, but they’re a bit impersonal - maybe
some more prose would help to present your ideas better?

Having said that, parts of the site maybe have too much information.
The people to whom you want to sell your service probably don’t want to
know the implementation details of this service.

“Making IT efficient” is certainly a noble aspiration, I hope you can
make it a profitable one but it’ll be a tough market!

All the best

Gerard


#7

Gerard Flanagan wrote:

But I cannot apply the process to my own system.

I ask here, as I have criticized those 2 groups publically - and would
like to give the possibility to reverse the criticism - again publically.
[…]

Hi Ilias,

I like the overall style of your site - clean layout, good colour
scheme -

thanks.

but there are a number of spelling and grammar errors, (eg.
‘diagrams’ not ‘diagramms’, and the past participle of ‘feed’ is ‘fed’
not ‘feeded’), which stand out to a native English speaker.

I gues I have to apply a spell-check at minimum.

Also, your Usenet posting style is quite terse, almost like bullet
points, and your site reflects this (IMHO).

You are right.

This is my way of managing the complexity.

Flow-charts and bulleted
lists certainly have their place, but they’re a bit impersonal - maybe
some more prose would help to present your ideas better?

Again you are right.

The bulleted lists are essentially used by myself to get clarity (the
effort to rearrange a bulleted list is small)

The diagrams are used to display the same structures graphically. This
way I get more clarity and rearrange the bulleted lists.

Textual descriptions (a few exist on the site) are used (finally as
the effort to reflect changes is very high)to describe things more
thoroughly .

And that’s where I fail mostly.

Essentially I need a native english “prose-writer” (to use your term).

Having said that, parts of the site maybe have too much information.
The people to whom you want to sell your service probably don’t want to
know the implementation details of this service.

I understand your thought.

I don’t know if you refere to the process definition, or to the research
work.

I agree fully, that the research work (how the process has evolved)
should be not presented in the “first front”, as its not of intrest for
a target customer.

So the main menue should be freed of the “cases” and the “project”.

Instead, I should possibly add a “Sample” menue, where I publish some
real-life examples.

I will apply those changes in the next hours.

“Making IT efficient” is certainly a noble aspiration, I hope you can
make it a profitable one but it’ll be a tough market!

Yes, there are many companies out there.

The customer list of this one is impressive:

http://www.hammerandco.com/about-customers.asp

But I don’t think that they could reengineer e.g. an open source project
or the structures of the lisp community.

I have specialized myself on public systems, like e.g. open source
projects, whilst applying a method which works exclusively via internet
(written conversation).

All the best

Thanks a lot!

I’ve gained many things through your feedback!

Gerard


#8

Ilias L. wrote:

b) to retrieve feedback subjecting the Process Definition itself
(content of diagramms, clarity, terminology etc.)

This is a lie, and you know it.

You are merely some kind of strange troll. You’ve built something that
you consider the only “object model” worth using within your mind and
proceed to try bashing OO languages such as Py or Ruby because they
don’t fit your own object model and terminology.

No one in either c.l.p or c.l.r need you, no one wants your object
model, no one wants your so-called evaluations (especially about the
community leaders, your various comments about both Guido van Rossum and
Yukihiro “Matz” Matsumoto are insulting and disrespectful), please do
everyone a favor: create your damn own language, or head over to
comp.lang.lisp and implement your object model in this language, Lisp is
a meta-language and nothing stops you from heading over and creating a
new object model from scratch (that’s been done countless times anyway,
and the CLOS probably wouldn’t fit your personal object model, so go
ahead).

The fact is that you don’t live in reality, you generate more buzzwords
and empty acronyms than a well-trained marketroid, but guess what? that
doesn’t matter, unless you can prove that what you advocate works.

And you can’t.

Both Ruby’s object model and Py’s object models work. They have flaws,
they evolve, they grow and change, but they work, they are used in real
world situations and they fit the needs of their respective communities.
“Ilias L. Majic Object Model” doesn’t. Period.

Just stop posting altogether, implement your damn blasted object model
(or try to) in an existing language or create a new language to
implement it and just leave us.

And stop spamming your damn worthless website too. Thank you very much.

I can’t see anything at this site what would make sense to me.

you mean, you don’t understand anything?

No, he means that your website just doesn’t make sense. There is no
purpose, no consistency, no way to understand what the website is
supposed to hold, no way to find informations (and your colorful
graphs with an informative level of somewhere below 0 do not count as
information BTW).

I’ll add that the color/style schemes are awfully misleading (why the
hell are random words in bold-ocre, please go read a few books on
interfaces and websites creation because you obviously don’t have a clue
there, Steve Krug’s “Don’t Make Me Think” would be a much required
start), that the various categories are unclear, fuzzy and never
explained anywhere
and that you claiming that you can review websites
(for a fee on top of that) is insulting to people with actual skills in
the field.


#9

On Friday 06 January 2006 10:04 am, Xavier M. wrote:

Ilias L. wrote:

b) to retrieve feedback subjecting the Process Definition itself
(content of diagramms, clarity, terminology etc.)

This is a lie, and you know it.

You are merely some kind of strange troll.

Take it easy. The man asked for feedback on his website, not a critique
of his
personality or honesty.

SteveT

Steve L.
http://www.troubleshooters.com
removed_email_address@domain.invalid


#10

On Jan 6, 2006, at 9:04 AM, Xavier M. wrote:

or head over to comp.lang.lisp and implement your object model in
this language

Ilias is as famous in the Lisp community as he is in ours:

http://www.tfeb.org/lisp/mad-people.html

James Edward G. II


#11

On 1/6/06, Xavier M. removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

Ilias L. wrote:

b) to retrieve feedback subjecting the Process Definition itself
(content of diagramms, clarity, terminology etc.)

This is a lie, and you know it.

You are merely some kind of strange troll.

Ok, I never thought I’d be defending Ilias, but I must respond to this.

Many on ruby-talk will remember our previous encounters with Ilias. I
sure do. When I saw another post from Ilias pop up a few weeks ago,
I’ll admit I was “frightened”. I was tempted to put out a warning for
all the new members that weren’t aware of Ilias’ reputation. But I
refrained, deciding people would ignore him and/or he might be
reformed.

You know what? In the last two weeks, he’s not instigated any
controversy. He’s posted a request for feedback, and unlike last time,
he’s listening to that feedback (so far). Is this community the
appropriate forum for his request? Maybe not, but we can point that
out in a much nicer manner. And if you do want to give feedback on his
website, which may be inaccurate and/or horribly designed, the
criticism (for which he has asked!) shouldn’t be soaked in vitriol.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe as soon as we touch on the technical
inaccuracies of his site, we’ll degenerate into the same situtation as
before. But maybe not. Let’s just not throw stones, even if the target
might be a dog, ok?

Jacob F.


#12

James Edward G. II wrote:

On Jan 6, 2006, at 9:04 AM, Xavier M. wrote:

or head over to comp.lang.lisp and implement your object model in
this language

Ilias is as famous in the Lisp community as he is in ours:

http://www.tfeb.org/lisp/mad-people.html

My spam/bozo filters have apparently been exposed to Kryptonite; I had
hoped Mr. L had finally gone away, or that folks would stop encouraging
him.

It seems, though, that there are always new people to entertain him.

James

http://www.ruby-doc.org - Ruby Help & Documentation
http://www.artima.com/rubycs/ - Ruby Code & Style: Writers wanted
http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys
http://www.30secondrule.com - Building Better Tools


#13

Steve L. removed_email_address@domain.invalid writes:

personality or honesty.
[ ] You know I***s.


#14

On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 12:28:50AM +0900, Steve L. wrote:

personality or honesty.
The first thing I thought when I read a couple of his emails was “Is
this spam?” I’m still not sure.


Chad P. [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]

“A script is what you give the actors. A program
is what you give the audience.” - Larry Wall


#15

Chad P. wrote:

The first thing I thought when I read a couple of his emails was “Is
this spam?” I’m still not sure.

Whether it’s “spam” or not may be up to the individual. Browse the
ruby-talk archives back on and around 5/7/2005 where he was being
obnoxious and calling people names (including Matz), so you can see that
his return will cause some people to take particular notice.

/just hopes he’s calmed down
//enough about him


#16

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 15:28:50 -0000, Steve L. removed_email_address@domain.invalid
wrote:

of his
personality or honesty.

I wasn’t going to from say anything, but I have to admit that the site
in
question does come across as a carefully-crafted attempt to say nothing
in
as many words as possible.

Also, I don’t know, the way it talks about ‘re-engineering’ open source
projects is faintly worrying to me…


#17

Xavier M. wrote:

Ilias L. wrote:

b) to retrieve feedback subjecting the Process Definition itself
(content of diagramms, clarity, terminology etc.)

This is a lie, and you know it.

I’ve said it before, i’ll say it again; medical insurance premiums
should be lower for people who know how to use killfiles.


#18

Xavier M. wrote:

Ilias L. wrote:

b) to retrieve feedback subjecting the Process Definition itself
(content of diagramms, clarity, terminology etc.)

You are merely some kind of strange troll. You’ve built something that
[…] - (off topic comments)

note to readers: most of the comments are answered within those
sections:

http://lazaridis.com/core/index.html

http://lazaridis.com/core/eval/index.html

I can’t see anything at this site what would make sense to me.

you mean, you don’t understand anything?

No, he means that your website just doesn’t make sense.

I have understood this. that’s why I wrote:

"And it seems I’ve many work to do. "

There is no
purpose, no consistency, no way to understand what the website is
supposed to hold, no way to find informations (and your colorful
graphs with an informative level of somewhere below 0 do not count as
information BTW).

=> missing purpose and consistency
=> missing way to understand main scope of website.
=> missing way to find informations
=> graphs have no information value

I’ll add that the color/style schemes are awfully misleading (why the
hell are random words in bold-ocre, please go read a few books on

=> avoid bold-ocre

interfaces and websites creation because you obviously don’t have a clue
there, Steve Krug’s “Don’t Make Me Think” would be a much required

=> Book suggestion “Steve Krug’s - Don’t Make Me Think”

I operate based on public available resources.

start), that the various categories are unclear, fuzzy and never
explained anywhere

=> categories are unclear & fuzzy
=> missing explanations for categories

and that you claiming that you can review websites
(for a fee on top of that) is insulting to people with actual skills in
the field.

from the inital message:
"
I would like to ask for feedback on the Process Definition and
Presentation.

Essentially this is exactly what I’ve myself specialized to do.

But I cannot apply the process to my own system.
"

Thank you for your feedback.

TAG.evolution.criticism.harsh


#19

Ilias L. wrote:

comp.lang.python / comp.lang.ruby

I would like to ask for feedback on the Process Definition and
Presentation.

Essentially this is exactly what I’ve myself specialized to do.

But I cannot apply the process to my own system.
[…]

Your feedback is very important to me.

Based on the summary of the feedback so far, I’ve focused on one page -
the main page:

Although it needs a review from a native english speaker, I think that
this should give now a clear summary, without forcing the reader to
think very much:

"
Lazaridis ReEngineering is specialized on System Evaluation and
Reengineering

We can assist you to find your strenghts & weaknesses, your
opportunities & threats.

We can assist you to find the neccessary changes and the simplest ways
to implement those changes with minimal effort.

Suggested changes are mostly demonstrated with comparisons or samples.
Theory involvement is avoided whenever possible. This way you can verify
change suggestion with a minimal time investment.

We apply a method which works via internet. This method is based
exclusively on written conversation and is very pragmatic.

Our services are specialized on software-companies. The services use a
top-down approach which starts from the website, goes to the product,
the support, the project and can reach the source codes, especially
within open source projects. The prices for our services start at 250,-
?.

We offer a no-cost / no-obligation review of your website. This is the
simplest way to introduce yourself to our services and to verify our
skills.

Just try it - you have nothing to loose!

 Request it via e-mail or via contact form.

"

Any comments or suggestions are welcome.


#20

Alan G. wrote:

Chad P. wrote:

The first thing I thought when I read a couple of his emails was “Is
this spam?” I’m still not sure.

Whether it’s “spam” or not may be up to the individual. Browse the
ruby-talk archives back on and around 5/7/2005 where he was being
obnoxious and calling people names (including Matz), so you can see that
his return will cause some people to take particular notice.

[note to readers]

you can verify the above statement by reviewing the ruby evaluation:

http://lazaridis.com/core/eval/ruby.html

“But virtually everyone except us (me and you, Ilias) seem to have the
other model in mind.”
Mr. Yukihiro M. (Matz), Ruby Language Designer.

source:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/msg/3f4db74cebcd83b4

/just hopes he’s calmed down
//enough about him