Past, present and future: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Unlike [[This is Spinal Tap|the ’Tap]] this will not be some bold new direction: There is no interfering Yoko and the lead guitarist has not departed because of creative differences: he's just got a bit older and more partial to country & western. The cricket bat? An affectation. | Unlike [[This is Spinal Tap|the ’Tap]] this will not be some bold new direction: There is no interfering Yoko and the lead guitarist has not departed because of creative differences: he's just got a bit older and more partial to country & western. The cricket bat? An affectation. | ||
Instead the JC is going to double down on his current direction | Instead the JC is going to double down on his current direction since, after a decade pulling and pushing at it, he is fairly confident he now knows what it is. | ||
In essence the plan is to | In essence, the plan is to “turn it up to 11” and see what happens. Tally ho. | ||
===How it started=== | ===How it started=== | ||
The JC has been running in one form or another now for nearly fifteen years. It started out as one | The JC has been running in one form or another now for nearly fifteen years. It started out as one fellow trying to nut out the close out mechanics of the {{isdama}} and then put it somewhere where he wouldn’t lose it. The bits he couldn’t nut out, he decided to make fun of. | ||
It has all grown a bit since then but that is still the basic idea. | |||
Being easily distracted and essentially | The fabulous open source [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki platform] — the same one [[Wikipedia]] runs on — turned out to be a really good way of maintaining and building knowhow. Creating, linking and cross-referencing material in a holistic and [[non-linear]] way is simple on MediaWiki. | ||
Being an easily distracted and essentially [[Sloth|lazy]] sod — which I maintain is a paragon virtue — this way of working suits me perfectly. You can quickly create articles, save them down, and fix them them later. You can edit while you are on the train, walking the dog, or being driven up the wall by [[middle manager]]s on interminable weekly regulatory change [[stakeholder]] check-point [[all-hands conference call|conference calls]]. It is perfect for those who are frequently interrupted and chronically wanting of an attention span. Anything you start now you can save down and come back to later. | |||
This is content creation by a kind of alluvial process: small, inconsequential additions silt up over time. It doesn’t need a grand plan. It’s forever provisional. Iterative. That suits the erratic, impulsive nature of modern practice. It certainly suits me. | This is content creation by a kind of alluvial process: small, inconsequential additions silt up over time. It doesn’t need a grand plan. It’s forever provisional. Iterative. That suits the erratic, impulsive nature of modern practice. It certainly suits me. | ||
| Line 29: | Line 31: | ||
The focus has always been analysing, explaining, simplifying, demystifying and ''contextualising'' — the commercial context the most important of all since that is the aspect most often lost on newcomers (and, frankly, old hands) in these highly specialised products. | The focus has always been analysing, explaining, simplifying, demystifying and ''contextualising'' — the commercial context the most important of all since that is the aspect most often lost on newcomers (and, frankly, old hands) in these highly specialised products. | ||
The tone is idiosyncratic and unashamedly non-corporate | The tone is idiosyncratic and unashamedly non-corporate. It will stay that way. From the start, creating the JC had to be not just easy, but ''fun'': there was no way I could have stuck at it if it was a drag. It turned out to be quite the outlet for the frustrated writer. | ||
And, Lord only knows, there is much that is absurd about our modern corporate life and the people who populate the landscape of the financial markets, which asks for satire, and precious few who are inclined to make fun of it, so the JC found a niche. | |||
All of this | All of this with a day-job. Mind you, the JC has largely been how I have managed to ''do'' a day job since I started it — lawyers gravely undervalue [[knowledge management]], even though it should be the most important thing they do. Nevertheless I owe a debt of gratitude to a sequence of employers over the last decade and a half for letting me carry on with it. They know who they are. | ||
===Where it’s at=== | ===Where it’s at=== | ||
Revision as of 15:17, 20 May 2023
|
Jazz Odyssey
The JC is about to launch some big changes on the site and asked me to update the hardy band of readers on what’s about to happen and why.
Unlike the ’Tap this will not be some bold new direction: There is no interfering Yoko and the lead guitarist has not departed because of creative differences: he's just got a bit older and more partial to country & western. The cricket bat? An affectation.
Instead the JC is going to double down on his current direction since, after a decade pulling and pushing at it, he is fairly confident he now knows what it is.
In essence, the plan is to “turn it up to 11” and see what happens. Tally ho.
How it started
The JC has been running in one form or another now for nearly fifteen years. It started out as one fellow trying to nut out the close out mechanics of the ISDA Master Agreement and then put it somewhere where he wouldn’t lose it. The bits he couldn’t nut out, he decided to make fun of.
It has all grown a bit since then but that is still the basic idea.
The fabulous open source MediaWiki platform — the same one Wikipedia runs on — turned out to be a really good way of maintaining and building knowhow. Creating, linking and cross-referencing material in a holistic and non-linear way is simple on MediaWiki.
Being an easily distracted and essentially lazy sod — which I maintain is a paragon virtue — this way of working suits me perfectly. You can quickly create articles, save them down, and fix them them later. You can edit while you are on the train, walking the dog, or being driven up the wall by middle managers on interminable weekly regulatory change stakeholder check-point conference calls. It is perfect for those who are frequently interrupted and chronically wanting of an attention span. Anything you start now you can save down and come back to later.
This is content creation by a kind of alluvial process: small, inconsequential additions silt up over time. It doesn’t need a grand plan. It’s forever provisional. Iterative. That suits the erratic, impulsive nature of modern practice. It certainly suits me.
So I started silting away. Before long, the JC had fully summarised and analysed anatomies of both editions of the ISDA, and other definitions booklets, master agreements, and legal resources followed. Some remained embryonic, some got deleted, some grew.
Coverage has always been idiosyncratic, following my prevailing practice specialisation, which has meandered over the years (you will observe: ISDA, equities, equity derivatives, prime brokerage, emissions, exchange traded derivatives, structured notes, repackaging, credit derivatives and, along the way, a fair bit of regulatory stuff).
The focus has always been analysing, explaining, simplifying, demystifying and contextualising — the commercial context the most important of all since that is the aspect most often lost on newcomers (and, frankly, old hands) in these highly specialised products.
The tone is idiosyncratic and unashamedly non-corporate. It will stay that way. From the start, creating the JC had to be not just easy, but fun: there was no way I could have stuck at it if it was a drag. It turned out to be quite the outlet for the frustrated writer.
And, Lord only knows, there is much that is absurd about our modern corporate life and the people who populate the landscape of the financial markets, which asks for satire, and precious few who are inclined to make fun of it, so the JC found a niche.
All of this with a day-job. Mind you, the JC has largely been how I have managed to do a day job since I started it — lawyers gravely undervalue knowledge management, even though it should be the most important thing they do. Nevertheless I owe a debt of gratitude to a sequence of employers over the last decade and a half for letting me carry on with it. They know who they are.
Where it’s at
Broadly the JC splits down three ways:
Waggery: Basic waggishness for the sake of it — Toto chat, Otto Büchstein and Opco Boone nonsense. This has little value to anyone but me, and will stay free. If you enjoy it, great!
Noble amateurism: Substantive content about things I am not expert in, but which I’ve read about in my travels and which I thought are tangential to legal practice and office life: business management, complexity, systems theory, behavioural psychology, organisational sociology and so on. Much of this is in the form of summaries, book reviews and (often ham-fisted) longer essays which synthesize this learning into things I have found useful for modern life and career management. This material will also, for the time being, be on the free site.
Legal stuff: Detailed legal documentation “anatomies”. These include hyperlinked versions of canonical legal terms, the JC’s own Nutshell™ summaries of those terms, comparisons and in-depth discussion and analysis of common practical, commercial and legal issues. Also, longer (also often ham-fisted) essays on market history, market dislocations and catastrophic events, and how regulators and banking institutions have reacted to them or, in the JC’s unsolicited opinion, should have. This material draws on 30 year “school of life” experience as a practising lawyer in the international financial markets. This will make up the bulk of the premium content.
It shouldn’t need to be said but, let’s say it: this is an information resource and not specific legal advice. Any reader uses it at her own risk. These are strong opinions weakly held: they are personal, idiosyncratic, impatient, polemical and, surprise surprise, contrarian. A good portion of them are probably wrong. Like its author’s mind, it is also prone to unexpected change, without warning or notice. Everything is provisional.
This material is, in other words, for discussion between peers. It is no tablet from Mount Sinai. It is meant for people who are engaged in specialist negotiation and advisory capacities, who will already have a basic technical grounding in these disciplines and who are experienced and sceptical enough to disagree with it. The JC makes no apologies for sticking two fingers up at conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom is welcome to stick two fingers right back up at the JC, and often does.
That is one of the key values this material brings: a different perspective, to tweak the nose of complacency, to apple-pie the bed of dogmatic slumber, and to challenge perfectly reasonable preconceptions. The JC is not perfect. But as the financial disasters roll of honour demonstrates, neither is anyone else. There are fakers, dilettantes, confidence players and bullshit artists everywhere. The JC just admits to being one, is all.
Think of the JC as a contribution to your cognitive diversity quotient.
Where it’s going
There are a host of “push” resources out there: client briefings, newsletters, Twitter feeds and so on, shunting discrete and unconnected “timely” information at you. There are comparatively few “pull” resources — deep, interconnected, nonlinear resources where the reader comes to the material, rather than having it shoved in the reader’s face. This is because building a pull resource is a big job. You can’t do it overnight, and it usually takes a lot of people and coordination.
Rather by accident, the JC has become one such resource. It gets a fairly regular flow of about 10,000 unique visitors per month. Beyond rough geographic data, which suggests the JC is popular in places where people negotiate ISDA Master Agreements, we don’t know much about its readership, other than that they too are interested in whether Kilimanjaro really rises above the Serengeti. (It’s our top search).
You lovely premium subscribers will help fund technological improvements the site needs to grow, and to build out its content: better documentation of and a tidy-up to the coding to manage the technical back-end, which should make the whole thing more consistent. We would like to commission some help to build out premium content, making the site more comprehensive: as a premium subscriber you would benefit from that. We have some far-off, dreamy plans to create a customised offering for in-house teams, but that is a bit further off in the future.
We also hope our premium subscribers will influence where we should focus content build out.
Georgia ’s fund?
Yup, he still supports that, and will continue to do so.
What's with the constantly using the third person?
Dread Pirate Roberts. Say no more.
Olly Buxton
The Jالی Contrarian