Back to blogging

There have been many things on my mind lately, and I've not had the
discipline in place to make them flow together coherently. The
"bookmarks" I have saved on my del.icio.us account
gives some indication of what I've been pondering, but by no means, a
complete picture. One thing is for sure: all this distraction has
pushed my blogging to the side. Today, I will get back on my blogging
podiums to write about both the personal side and the work side of what
I've been up to.

On the personal side:

As I jumped in wondering what I should actually write about, I felt
instantly pulled in too many directions. Fortunately, I was reminded of
the central lessons of the last weeks: that I should start in a place
of great stillness, which also happens to be a place of great depth. As
I hold myself still, I am able to accept that I am a little human being
living in a world with outsized needs, including my own. I remember the
pledge I had made to pray for Darfur, and I pause to do so. We put up a
display to raise awareness about Darfur at First Pres Berkeley and will host a postcard writing event for A Million Voices for Darfur
in early April. I am relieved that spring break is coming up, primarily
because it gives my students and me some breathing room for the course.

The absence of activity on my electronic presences belies the churn of
words on my computer. Having just read about super-prolific Stephen
Downe's recently announced hiatus from blogging
to take time to stop and reflect made me wonder whether I'm going in
the wrong direction by trying to get back into blogging.

The situations are certainly not parallel. First, I've never been the
regular and prolific blogger that Stephen was. I have had lots of time
to reflect, though I can stand for more in this time of change,
challenge, and opportunity. Most importantly, I believe that regular
weblogging would be an excellent discipline for me since it would force
me to work in smaller chunks, to begin and to complete manageable
pieces of work on a regular basis. Without forcing myself to write
coherent sentences and paragraphs, I will generate monstrous lists of
suggestive phrases. Writers understand the seductiveness of such lists,
which seem to contain more content than they actually do.

On the work side:

There is a huge amount of change afoot in my workplace and in my own
professional career. Although it would be inappropriate for me to write
about some of these matters, I can certainly write openly about my
personal vision for information technology at UC Berkeley and beyond.
This is an opportune moment to rethink every aspect of my professional
work as I look at the field at large and the challenges, opportunities,
and risks before me specifically. The product of my (over?) cogitation
has been long EccoPro
outlines with phrases such as remix, interoperability,
gather/create/share, grids, bibliographic metadata, knowledge
repository, seamlessness. My job now is to write these outlines in
little essays that make sense to others. time to step back to ponder
what we do to best serve the academic and research needs of the campus.

What I need vs what I want

I'm having a hard time accepting that I need long stretches of quiet
contemplation to become truly centered and grounded. I just wish it
weren't true. I wish I could instantly jump from one situation to
another with effortless "context switching" and be fully immersed in
each task from the start. Isn't that the dream of a society hooked on
"continuous partial attention"? I've been attracted to the "Getting
Things Done" system for that reason. As the Wikipedia explains:

    GTD rests on the principle that you have to get
    things out of your head and recorded into a system you can trust. That
    way, your mind is freed from the job of remembering everything that you
    need to do, and can concentrate fully on actually doing those things.

GTD has certainly helped me get better organized, but it hasn't been a
panacea. I don't blame GTD for my problem since it never promised to
let me squeeze five elephants into a clay jar. Instead of aspiring to
grow large enough to envelope elephants, I need to accept that I am
just an ordinary clay jar.

Down with a cold

On Thursday evening, I realized that I had a cold. My throat started to
hurt, and I felt unusually tired. I took off yesterday from work as a
sick day (though I did make an important hard-to-set-up meeting at
9am.) I slept a fair amount and tried sleeping even more. I suspect
that I'll need to nap throughout today and tomorrow to make sure that I
get well ASAP.

My mind continued to race while lying in bed. My body was saying, "You
must rest." My brain says, "You must work." I hadn't counted on being
so drained by the code4lib conference, followed almost immediately by
Mashup Camp, combined by the rigorous demands of teaching a new course
plus a whole lot of other circumstances. Even as I write this
paragraph, my eyes and legs feel droopy and draggy. Time to nap a bit.

UC Compensation and Drucker: Take One

At a party late last fall, someone asked me what I thought about the
stories that were breaking in the San Francisco Chronicle about how the
perks that senior administration at the UC system were getting. I
expressed my natural outrage at the situation but didn't think a lot
more about the matter since I didn't think anything would ever
change. (I've gotten sufficiently cynical to expect bad behavior from
the people at the very top. Isn't that sad?) Recently, I started to
follow more closely the ongoing coverage in the Chronicle (including
the latest article SENATORS DEMAND ANSWERS ON UC PAY / Unreported compensation raises ire at panel's hearing ), as well as the PR responses of UC Berkeley and the system as a whole.
The more I learn, the more I'm longing for some deep wisdom in this
matter. How much I get paid or you get paid or anyone gets paid -- or
should get paid -- is a hot-button issue. I've been fascinated by the
types of arguments that have been marshalled to justify various
positions. At the risk of incorrectly characterizing the debate, it
seems that those who are justifying the high pay of senior people argue
that we need horizontal parity; UC leaders should be paid at
comparable levels to leaders at peer institutions. Those who express
outrage at the compensation of senior leaders draw our attention to the
lack of vertical fairness; is it right for the pay at the
highest levels to be going up, while the rank-and-file (who could
really use the money!) are not similarly benefiting?

I know that it's more complicated that what I set out here -- and
that's what I'm trying to get at as I sort through the arguments. More
fundamentally, I've been searching my own heart on how I currently feel
and how I would feel should I ever going higher (or fall lower) down
the hierarchy. I keep asking myself to what extent are my views -- and
those of everyone involved -- more self-serving than reflective of a
concern for others. There's a lot more to say. I will close with
bemusement the following quote from the Wikipedia entry on Peter
Drucker: Peter Drucker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

    His most controversial work was on compensation
    schemes, in which he said that senior management should not be
    compensated more than twenty times the lowest paid employees. This
    attracted criticism from some of the same people who had previously
    praised him.

(I'm looking for the source for the 20:1 figure and plan to follow up once I find it.)