n8, 9 characters left is a user on mastodon.social. You can follow them or interact with them if you have an account anywhere in the fediverse. If you don't, you can sign up here.

In O'Reilly CFPs, "non-technical" is a level just below "beginner".... mastodon.social/media/AOapfCEu

n8, 9 characters left @n8

And just so we're clear, what they mean by "technical" is "software person". Are you a linguist? MD? Sound engineer? That's not "technical" in O'Reilly's book.

· Web · 1 · 2

Chemist? Number theorist? Lawyer? Botantist? Cartographer?
Criminal Psychologist? Statistician? "Non-technical".

@n8 those all seem like technical pursuits to me. I wish 'technical' didn't necessarily mean technology. I've always technical referred to the details of a subject, the intellectual minutae involved in a subject.

@sri Precisely; I'd like to see us intentionally adopt terminology like "non-developer" at the very least. Maybe not perfect, but surely an improvement.

@n8 non-developer though seems to single out people IMHO. In a technical project, non-developer migh seem like a lower position. My two cents.

@sri Well, my original thought was "non-software person"; I just figured that to be too wordy. Might also include QA, bug-squashing, and many other tasks, though.

@n8 @sri Certainly; I didn't include all the tasks that go into developing software. Those listed were just a handful of examples.

@n8 @sri Some people consider designers, docs, translators, and PMs all non-developers because they aren't necessarily the ones doing the programming.

I say anyone involved in making software is a developer.

(This isn't even counting the overlap when one of those mentioned can _also_ program, even if it might or might not be one of their official tasks.)

@garrett @sri Yeah; ultimately, in the original context, the issue at hand is the content of the talk, not the people, so perhaps that's the way we ought to try phrasing everything ... rather than with human-labels....