seen a few soft murmurings about the idea that the made, the making, and the maker includes the made-for. that’s good. if the idea doesn’t work, let’s change it so it does.
i do want to toss some grist into the mill that might have impact.
in some of what i’m seeing, “children” could easily be substituted for “made-for”. as in, “think of the chiiiiiildren”.
others are a tad more hard-nosed, if not quite mercenary about it: they say “made-for” and they think “paid-by”. they notice that a great deal of software isn’t made to make a user’s life better, it’s made to encourage user’s to behave in a certain way. the two most common forms are “make the user spend more” and “make the user give me info i can sell”.
if we’re to change the formulation by adding “made for”, we need a much stronger sense of who we’re talking about with that phrase.
a second point: in-team-fulness. the agility i propose is actually not a description of an entire ecosystem, but of a particular unity in that ecosystem: the team. is your “made for” in the team or out? what is the impact of how you answer that question?
a third: when you think of the “made for”, are the people you’re thinking of as makers all programmers, and people who aren’t makers all non-programmers?
i’ve defined “geek”, a term i use a lot, as a person who is highly technical, highly creative, and highly desirous of being both. for me, maker and geek are pretty close together, and they are not restricted at akk to “people who code”.
if only coders are makers, what are the other people in the team? again, what is the impact of any proposed answer?
so. by all means press on this idea. i’ve no deep need to defend it just now, and i won’t freak out if you’re not mean to me.
as you help us puzzle it out, do think about how you delimit “made for” and “maker” and any other group of people you wish to add, and what that means.