Will your tooling let me go offline?

By Christopher Allan Webber on Fri 15 July 2016

I have been a happy man ever since January 1, 1990, when I no longer had an email address. I'd used email since about 1975, and it seems to me that 15 years of email is plenty for one lifetime.

Email is a wonderful thing for people whose role in life is to be on top of things. But not for me; my role is to be on the bottom of things. What I do takes long hours of studying and uninterruptible concentration. I try to learn certain areas of computer science exhaustively; then I try to digest that knowledge into a form that is accessible to people who don't have time for such study.

-- Donald Knuth on not reading email

Finally working again on tasks where I can "go offline" for periods of time. For a while I've been working on things where all the documentation I needed was "live" on the web, and it was too difficult to know what to pull down in advance. Now I'm going offline for periods to work on the thing I'm doing, and remembering just how much that helps. Sometimes I just can't focus with eternal streams of... everything.

I've found over time that I'm massively more productive working with software that has texinfo manuals or man pages, because I can "go offline" for a while and think through problems without the eternal distractnet affecting my ability to concentrate. (I know info manuals aren't great for non-emacs users. But for me, it really helps me focus. Plus, there's nothing like navigating through info manuals in emacs if you are an emacs user.)

I'm not claiming this is a full on accessibility issue, but given my really strong ADD, whether or not you provide good offline manuals affects how productive I am with your tooling.

This post was originally posted to the pumpiverse.

Memories of a march against DRM

By Christopher Allan Webber on Wed 23 March 2016

Protesting EME before the Microsoft building

Above image CC BY 3.0, originally here, and here's a whole gallery of images.

I participated in a rally against the W3C endorsing DRM last Sunday. I know it was recorded, but I haven't seen any audio or video recordings up yet, and some friends have asked what really happened there. I thought I'd write up what I remembered.

First, some context: the rally (and subsequent roundtable discussion) wasn't officially part of LibrePlanet, but it did happen right after it. This was one of the busiest free software focused weeks of my life, and just earlier in the week I had been participating in the Social Web Working Group at the W3C, trying to hammer out our work on federation and other related standards. I'm so excited about this work, that it stands out in an interesting contrast to my feelings on a different "standards in the W3C" issue: the real danger that the W3C will endorse DRM by recommending the Encrypted Media Extensions specification.

Before I get to the rally itself, I want to dispel what I think has been some intentional muddying of the issue by advocates of the specification. Let's turn to the words of the specification itself:

This specification does not define a content protection or Digital Rights Management system. Rather, it defines a common API that may be used to discover, select and interact with such systems as well as with simpler content encryption systems. Implementation of Digital Rights Management is not required for compliance with this specification: only the Clear Key system is required to be implemented as a common baseline.

Whew! That doesn't sound so bad does it? Except, oh wait, reading this you might think that this isn't about DRM at all, and that's an intentional piece of trickery by the authors of this specification. As Danny O'Brien later said at the panel (I'm paraphrasing here): "While it's true that the specification doesn't lay out a method for implementing DRM, it instead lays out all the things that surround this hole. The thing is, it's a DRM shaped hole, and indeed DRM is the only thing that fits in that hole."

So once you look at it that way, yes, it's a DRM-enabling specification. We have other programs and standards for handling "encryption". Encryption is good, because it empowers users. The goal of this specification is to make space for something to fit onto your computer to strip you of your computing power and freedom.

With that said, onto the memories of the evening.

The march started outside MIT’s Ray and Maria Stata Center, where the W3C offices are. There were a good number of people there, though I didn't count them. I'm guessing it was 50 or so people, which is not bad turnout at all for a post-busy-conference everyone-is-probably-exhausted march. Despite anticipating being totally exhausted, I was surprised to find that I wasn't, and neither was anyone around me. Everyone seemed super fired up.

There were some speeches from Harry Halpin and Zak Rogoff and myself to kick things off. I don't remember Harry or Zak's speeches at this stage, though I remember thinking they were pretty good. (Harry made clear that he was a W3C staff member but was acting in his own capacity.)

As for what I said, here's my rough memory:

I started MediaGoblin from the goal and vision of preserving the decentralized nature of the World Wide Web in the growing area of media publishing, through audio, video, images, and so on. Thus I was proud to join the W3C in the standards work on our work formalizing federation through ActivityPub and by participating in the Social Web Working Group. But if the W3C enables EME, it enables DRM, and this threatens to undermine all that. If this were to apply to video only, this would be threat enough to oppose it. But once that floodgate opens, DRM will quickly apply to all types of documents distributed through the web, including HTML and JavaScript. The W3C's lasting legacy has been to build a decentralized document distribution network which enables user freedom. We must not allow the W3C to become an enemy of itself. Don't let the W3C lower its standards, oppose DRM infecting the web!

Anyway, something like that!

A lot of things happened, so let me move on to memory from what happened from there in bulleted list form:

  • We marched from MIT to Microsoft. There were quite a few chants, and "rm DRM" was the most fun to chant, but notably probably the least clear to any outsiders.
  • Danny O'Brien from the EFF gave a speech in front of the Microsoft building giving a history of DRM and why we must oppose it. He noted that one of the most dangerous parts of DRM in the United States is that the DMCA makes explaining how DRM works a crime, thus talking about the issue can become very difficult.
  • After the march we went to the roundtable discussion / panel, hosted at the MIT Media Lab. It was a full room, with even more people than the march (maybe 80-100 people attending, but I'm bad at counting these things). Everyone ate some pizza, which was great times. Then Richard Stallman, Danny O'Brien, Joi Ito, and Harry Halpin all took turns speaking.
  • Richard Stallman started with an introduction to free software generally. He then went through a detailed explanation about how DRM makes user freedom impossible. He then said something funny like "I was allowed 30 minutes, but I notice I only used 15; I will use the other 15 minutes to follow up to others if necessary." (He used a good portion of them to correct people on their terminology.)
  • Danny O'Brien gave a detailed explanation of the history of the fight against DRM. He also gave his "EME is a standard with a DRM shaped hole" comment. He then gave a history of the fight of something he considered similar, the fight against software patents, and how the W3C had decided to fight patents by including rules that W3C members could not sue using patents for concepts covered by these specifications.
  • This lead into what was probably the biggest controversy among the panel members: a proposal by the EFF of a "covenant" surrounding DRM. The proposal was something like, "if the W3C must adopt EME, it should provide rules protecting the public by making members promise that they will never sue free software developers and security researchers for violating DRM." Richard Stallman had a strong response to this, saying that this is not really a compromise (Danny clarified that this proposal did not mean giving up fighting DRM) and while it could make things a little bit less dangerous, it would still be very dangerous. It could be easily circumvented as the party suing might not be a W3C member (and indeed, you could imagine many record companies or Hollywood studios who are not W3C members suing in such a scenario).
  • A W3C staff employee at one point said that if the general public was to comment on EME, it should be disagreeing on technical points, and be careful not to raise confused technical issues, as that will lead comments to being dismissed. Danny gave a nice response, saying that while he agreed that technical issues should be correctly engaged, that technical decisions are made within a policy context, so we should be careful to not tell people to limit themselves to technical-issue-only comments.
  • Joi Ito gave various anecdotes about his understanding of what lead DRM to its current rise in prominence today. He also used "intellectual property" several times, leading predictably to a terminology-correcting response from RMS.
  • One audience member suggested that if the W3C adopts EME, it shows that it can not be trusted with the responsibility of managing the web's standards. Interestingly, this seemed to be met with a good deal of approval from the crowd. It also was an interesting counter-point to the "well if the W3C doesn't do it, someone will just set up another standards body to support DRM." This "risk" to the W3C might be just as or more likely of other standards bodies emerging to replace it if it moves forward with adopting EME (but in this case, by individuals motivated by preserving the decentralized integrity of the web).
  • Harry Halpin ended the panel with a bang... first, he reiterated that in participating in this panel, he was acting independently and not as a W3C employee. (And again, to paraphrase:) "However, I will say that there are some lines that must be drawn. Permitting DRM to enter into the web is a line that must not be crossed. And if the W3C moves to recommend EME, I will resign."


And so, that was my Sunday evening. If you were going to tell me that I would end the last evening of the last day of the week even more energized than when I began it (especially after a week as busy as that!), I would not have believed you. But there it is! I'm glad I got participate.

For more coverage, read up at Defective By Design, Motherboard, and BoingBoing. Oh yeah, and sign the anti-DRM petition while you're at it!

Goodbye 2015, Hello 2016

By Christopher Allan Webber on Mon 04 January 2016

I'm sitting on a train traveling from Illinois to California, the long stretch of a journey from Madison to San Francisco. Morgan sits next to me. We are staring out the windows of the observation deck of this train as we watch the snow covered mountains pass by. I am feeling more relaxed and at peace than I have in years.

2016 is opening in a big way for me. As you may have heard (I mentioned it in the last State of the Goblin post) MediaGoblin was accepted into the Stripe Open Source Retreat program. Basically, Stripe gives us no-strings-attached funding for me to advance our work on MediaGoblin, but they wanted me to work from their office during that time. Seems like quite a deal to me! Unfortunately it does mean leaving Morgan behind in Madison for that time period. But that's why we splurged on a fancy train car and why she's joining me in San Francisco for the first week, so we can spend some quality time together. (Plus, Morgan has a conference that first week in San Francisco anyway; double plus, Amtrak has an extremely generous baggage policy so I'm able to get all of the belongings I need for that period shipped along with me fairly easily.) Morgan and I have been talking about but not really taking a vacation for a while, so we decided the moving-scenery approach would be a nice way to do things. It's great... we're mostly reading and drinking tea and staring out the window at the beautiful passings-by. I could hardly imagine a nicer send-off. (So yeah, if you're considering taking such a journey with your loved ones, I recommend it.)

The passage of scenery leads to reflection on the passage of time. Now seems a good time to write a bit about 2015 and what it meant. It was a very eventful year for me. I have come recently to explain to people that "I live a magical and high-stress life"; 2015 evoked that well. From a personal standpoint, Morgan and I's relationship runs strong, maybe stronger than ever, and I am thankful for that. From the broader family standpoint, the graph advances steady at times with strong peaks and valleys, perhaps more pronounced than usual. Love, gain, success, loss... it feels that everything has happened this year. Our lives have also been rearranged dramatically in an attempt to help a family member in a time of need, and that has its own set of peaks and valleys, as is to be expected. But that is the stuff of life, and you do what you can when you can, and you try your best, and you hope that others will try their best, what happens from there happens, and you use it to plan the next round of doing the best you can.

That's all very vague I suppose, but many things feel too private to discuss so publicly. Nonetheless, I wanted to record the texture of the year.

So what in the way of, you know, that thing we call a "career"? Well, it has continued to be magical, in the way that I have had a lot of freedom to explore things and address issues I really care about. Receiving an award (particularly since I did not know I had even been a candidate ahead of being notified that I received it) has also been gratifying and reassuring in some ways; I regularly fear that I am not doing well enough at advancing the issues I care about, but clearly some people do, and that's nice. It has also continued to be high stress, in that the things I worry about feel very high stakes on a global level, and that the difficulty of accomplishing them also feels very strong, and of course many are not there yet. Nonetheless, there has been a lot of progress this year, though it has come with a worrying increase of scope in the number of things I am attempting to accomplish.

We're much nearer to 1.0 on MediaGoblin, which is a huge relief. Of course, this is mostly due to Jessica Tallon's hard work on getting federation in MediaGoblin working, and other MediaGoblin community memebers doing many other interesting things. Embarassingly, I have done a lot less on MediaGoblin than in the last few years. In a sense, this is okay, because the money from the campaign has been going to pay Jessica Tallon, and not myself. I still feel bad about it though. The good news is that the focus time from the Stripe retreat should allow me the space and focus to hopefully get 1.0 actually out the door. So that leads to strong optimism.

The reduced time spent coding on MediaGoblin proper has been deceptive, since most of the projects I've worked on have spun out of work I believe is essential for MediaGoblin's long-term success. I took a sabbatical from MediaGoblin proper mid-year to focus on two goals: advancing federation standards (and my own understanding of them), and advancing the state of free software deployment. (I'm aware of a whiff of yak fumes here, though for each I can't see how MediaGoblin can succeed in their present state.) I believe I have made a lot of progress in both areas. As for federation, I've worked hard in participating in the W3C Social Working Group, I have done some test implementations, and recently I became co-editor on ActivityPump. On deployment, much work has been done on the UserOps side, both in speaking and in actual work. After initially starting to try to use Salt/Ansible as a base and hitting limitations, then trying to build my own Salt/Ansible'esque system in Hy and then Guile and hitting limitations there too, I eventually came to look into (after much prodding) Guix. At the moment, I think it's the only foundation solid enough on which to build the tooling to get us out of this mess. I've made some contributions, albeit mostly minor, have begun promoting the project more heavily, and am trying to work towards getting more deployment tooling done for it (so little time though!). I'm also now dual booting between GuixSD and Debian, and that's nice.

(Speaking of, towards the end of the year I switched to a Minifree x200 on which I'm dual booting Debian and Guix. I believe this puts me much deeper into the "free software vegan" territory.)

I also believe that over the last year I have changed dramatically as a programmer. For nearly ten years I identified as a "python web developer", but I believe that identity no longer feels like an ideal description. One thing I have always been self conscious of is how little I've known about deeper computer science fundamentals. This has changed a lot, and I believe much of it has been spending so much time in the Guile and Scheme communities, and reading the copious interesting literature that is available there. My brother Steve and I also now often meet together and watch various programming lectures and discuss them, which has been both illuminating and also a great way to understand a side of my brother I never knew. It's a nice mix; I'm a very get-things-done person, he's a very theoretical person, and we're meeting partway in the middle and I think both of us are stretching our brains in ways we hadn't before. I feel like a different programmer than I was. A year and a half ago, I remember being on a bike ride with Steve and I remember complaining to him that I didn't understand why functional programmers are so obsessed with immutability... mutation is so useful, I exclaimed! Steve paused and said very carefully, "Well... mutation brings a lot of problems..." but I just didn't understand what he was getting at. Now I look back on that bike ride and wonder at the former-me taking that position.

(All that said though, I'm glad that I've had the background I have of being a "python web developer" first, for a matter of perspective...)

I do feel that much has changed in my life in this last year. There were hard things, but overall, life has been good to me, and I still am doing what I believe in and care about. Not everyone has that opportunity. And this train ride already points the way to a year that should be productive, and will certainly be eventful.

Anyway, that's enough navel-gazing-reflection, I suppose. One more navel-gaze: here's to the changed person on the other end of 2016. I hope I can do them justice. And I hope you can do yourself justice in 2016 too.

VCS friendly, patchable, document line wrapping

By Christopher Allan Webber on Thu 17 December 2015

If you do enough work in any sort of free software environment, you get used to doing lots of writing of documentation or all sorts of other things in some plaintext system which exports to some non-plaintext system. One way or another you have to decide: are you going to wrap your lines with newlines? And of course the answer should be "yes" because lines that trail all the way off the edge of your terminal is a sin against the plaintext gods, who are deceptively mighty, and whose wrath is to be feared (and blessings to be embraced). So okay, of course one line per paragraph is off the table. So what do you do?

For years I've taken the lazy way out. I'm an emacs user, and emacs comes with the `fill-paragraph' command, so conveniently mapped to M-q. So day in and day out I'm either whacking M-q now and then, or I'm being lazy and letting something like `auto-fill-mode' do the job. Overall this results in something rather pleasing to the plaintext-loving eye. If we take our first paragraph as an example, it would look like this:

If you do enough work in any sort of free software environment, you get used to
doing lots of writing of documentation or all sorts of other things in some
plaintext system which exports to some non-plaintext system.  One way or
another you have to decide: are you going to wrap your lines with newlines?
And of course the answer should be "yes" because lines that trail all the way
off the edge of your terminal is a sin against the plaintext gods, who are
deceptively mighty, and whose wrath is to be feared (and blessings to be
embraced).  So okay, of course one line per paragraph is off the table.  So
what do you do?

But my friends, you know as well as I do: this isn't actually good. And we know it's not good because one of the primary benefits of plaintext is that we have nice tools to diff it and patch it and check it into version control systems and so on. And the sad reality is, if you make a change at the start of a paragraph and then you re-fill (or re-wrap for you non-emacs folks) it, you are going to have a bad time! Why? Because imagine you and your friends are working on this document together, and you're working in some branch of your document, and then your friend Sarah or whoever sends you a patch and you're so excited to merge it, and she does a nice job and edits a bunch of paragraphs and re-wraps it or re-fills them because why wouldn't she do that, it's the best convention you have, so you happily merge it in and say thanks, you look forward to future edits, and then you go to merge in your own branch you've been working on privately, but oh god oh no you were working on your own overhaul which re-wrapped many of the same paragraphs and now there are merge conflicts everywhere.

That's not an imaginary possibility; if you've worked on a documentation project big enough, I suspect you've hit it. And hey, look, maybe you haven't hit it, because maybe most of your writing projects aren't so fast paced. But have you ever looked at your version control log? Ever done a `git/svn/foo blame', `git/svn/foo praise', or whatever convention? Eventually you can't figure out what commit anything came from, and my friends, that is a bad time.

In trying to please the plaintext gods, we have defiled their temple. Can we do better?

One interesting suggestion I've heard, but just can't get on board with, is to keep each sentence on its own line. It's a nice idea, and I want to like it, because the core idea is good: each sentence doesn't interfere with the one before or after it, so if you change a sentence, it's easy for both you and the computer to tell which one. This means you can check things in and out of version control, send and receive patches, and from that whole angle, things are great.

But it's a sin to the eye to have stuff scrolling off the edge of your terminal like that, and each sentence on its own line, well... it just confuses me. Let's re-look at that first paragraph again in this style:

If you do enough work in any sort of free software environment, you get used to doing lots of writing of documentation or all sorts of other things in some plaintext system which exports to some non-plaintext system.
One way or another you have to decide: are you going to wrap your lines with newlines?
And of course the answer should be "yes" because lines that trail all the way off the edge of your terminal is a sin against the plaintext gods, who are deceptively mighty, and whose wrath is to be feared (and blessings to be embraced).
So okay, of course one line per paragraph is off the table.
So what do you do?

Ugh, it's hard to put into words why this is so offensive to me. I guess it's because each sentence can get so long that it looks like the separation between sentence is a bigger break than the separation between paragraphs. And I just hate things scrolling off to the right like that. I don't want to be halfway through reading a word on my terminal and then have to jump back so I can keep reading it.

So no, this is not good either. But it is on the right track. Is there a way to get the best of both worlds?

Recently, when talking about this problem with my good friend David Thompson, I came to realize that there is a potentially great solution that makes a hybrid of the technical merits of the one-sentence-per-line approach and the visually pleasing merits of the wrap/fill-your-paragraph approach. And the answer is: put each sentence on its own line, and wrap each sentence!

This is best seen to be believed, so let's take a look at that first paragraph again... this time, as I typed it into my blogging system:

If you do enough work in any sort of free software environment, you get used
  to doing lots of writing of documentation or all sorts of other things in
  some plaintext system which exports to some non-plaintext system.
One way or another you have to decide: are you going to wrap your lines with
And of course the answer should be "yes" because lines that trail all the way
  off the edge of your terminal is a sin against the plaintext gods, who are
  deceptively mighty, and whose wrath is to be feared (and blessings to be
So okay, of course one line per paragraph is off the table.
So what do you do?

Yes, yes, yes! This is what we want! Now it looks good, and it merges good. And we still can preserve the multi-line separation between paragraphs. Also, you might notice that I continue each sentence by giving two spaces before its wrapped continuation, and I think that's an extra nice touch (but you don't have to do it).

This is how I'm writing all my documentation, and the style in which I will request all documentation for projects I start be written in, from now on. Now if you're writing an email, or something else that's meant to be read in plaintext as-is (you do read/write your email in plaintext, right?), then maybe you should just do the traditional fill paragraph approach. After all, you want that to look nice, and in many of those cases, the text doesn't change too much. But if you're writing something where the plaintext version is just intermediate, and you have some other export which is what people mostly will read, I think this is a rather dandy approach.

I hope you find it useful as well! Happy documentation hacking!

Parallels Between Code of Conducts and Copyleft (and their objectors)

By Christopher Allan Webber on Wed 09 December 2015

Here's a strawman I'm sure you've seen before:

Why all this extra process? Shouldn't we trust people to do the right thing? Wouldn't you rather people do the right thing because it's the right thing to do? People are mostly doing the right thing anyway! Trust in the hacker spirit to triumph!

The question is, is this an objection to copyleft, or is it an objection to code of conducts? I've seen objections raised to both that go along these lines. I think there's little coincidence, since both of them are objections to added process which define (and provide enforcement mechanisms for) doing the right thing.

Note that I don't think copyleft and code of conducts are exactly the same thing. They aren't, and the things they try to prevent are probably not proportional.

But I do think that there's an argument that achieving real world social justice involves a certain amount of process, laying the ground for what's permitted and isn't, and (if you have to, but hopefully you don't) a specified direction for requiring compliance with that correct behavior.

Curiously we also have people who are pro copyleft and strongly anti code of conduct, and the reverse. Maybe examining the parallels between objections to both might help identify that a supporter of one might consider that the other makes sense, too.

Update: This was originally posted to the pumpiverse and since cross-posting to my blog, at least one interesting response to it has been made there.

Another update: Sumana Harihareswara pointed out that not only had we probably talked about this when we hung out in May, but that she had previously written on the subject even before then! I had forgotten about reading this (I forget about a lot of things), though honestly, my post is probably a reflection of Sumana's original thoughts. She goes into more detail (and probably much better) than I did here... you should read her writing on the subject! It's good stuff!