Jeff, I agree with your points on communication, although I dislike the title evangelist and the term religious wars.
Software has nothing to do with religion, thankfully.
Software people can have strongly held opinions, but the crucial difference is that those opinions are based on reason, something religion rejects.
Plus, software people don’t hurt one another.
I thought this was about ipods too. 
I continuously get annoyed by this software evangelism thing.
Software development is NOT a religion, just like cooking is not a religion and building an automobile is not a religion. Your interpretation of the words ‘religion’ and ‘evangelist’ are not very close to the societal acceptance and understanding of those terms. I mean, sure you can SAY that software development is a religion and you can argue that it fits but you can also argue that a tomato is a vegetable, etc. etc.
I mean, as a software ‘evangelist’ what are you ‘preaching’? The golden path towards happiness and enlightenment through software development techniques? What’s next, the great software jihad? Software discrimination? Will Microsoft and Apple and Google erect churches and file for special religious tax exemptions?
Look, it’s like using the words ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ or ‘extremist’. You can apply those words to many situations but their definitive connotations remains clear. This need for branding and labeling is a little much. We turn out products, using other products, tools and techniques. Period. There are lots of products, tools and techniques to choose from. Some are better than others, and some are better for certain situations/people/etc. But when you combine all that stuff together you don’t wind up with religion. Talk about how great your product is - ok. Push for new ideas and new methodologies - cool. But don’t try to tell me it’s religion.
One reason software is like a religion because nobody can really tell you if what you’ve done is “right” in any meaningful way.
http://neopoleon.com/blog/posts/13166.aspx
You have to believe you’re doing the “right” thing.
Imagine a (religious) evangelist walking up to strangers on the street and saying, “Hi, I’m an evangelist”.
That will make a positive impression on those who already believe and a negative impression on everyone else.
That’s how I feel when someone introduces themselves as a technical evangelist. It’s as if they’re declaring their determination to influence my point of view, without first asking what my point of view is or whether I have any interest in changing it. What’s more, it suggests that they’ve never considered whether their approach might offend me. (As a competent professional, the suggestion that I need to be “evangelised” might indeed offend me - rightly or wrongly)
Regarless of one’s views on the merits of evangelism (religious or technical), I think it gets the conversation off on the wrong foot to introduce oneself using the term.
hi,
This cartoon could might as well be about software. 
http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/striphandler.ashx?stripid=69bc035c-8062-487a-8431-9c18ad9a7cc9
Jeff,
I suspect some of the controversy around this term stems from different interpretations about what “religion” actually is. I’ll offer two interpretations here, in no particular order:
(i) To some people, all religions are equally valid, and each person is free to choose the one which suits him or her best.
(ii) To other people, typically those with a strong faith, only one religion is actually true and it’s details are not considered negotiable.
Sofware development is about choices between options, recognising that no one option is right in all cases, and that the final decision is always subjective. In otherwords, software development is similar to the first interpretation of “religion”, above.
On the other hand, actual religious evangelists tend to subscribe to the second interpretation of “religion”, in which only one choice is right. (That’s why they care about evangelising those who believe differently.)
For most people, it is probably the second interpretation which springs to mind when they hear the word “evangelist”. As Chris says, that interpretion is a poor analogy for sofware engineering, and I think both believers and agnostics would agree with him.
you know… I’ve been thinking about this post of yours for a bit now…
and I think the better question is
’Why would you not be an evangelist?’
The way I see it, being an ‘evangelist’ (admittedly a semi-hype word) is all about the passion you share in communicating your ideas. Regardless of what you are ‘preaching’, if you speak passionately of anything you are indeed ‘preaching’.
There’s some sort of affinity with philosophy, politics (not the every-day sort of politics we are used to, mind you, but the kind of politics where people would step up, take great responsibilities and little rewards just because they felt it was the best way to improve their ‘civitas’) and, of course, religion (that’s where we borrowed the term from, after all).
So, unless you are lacking passion, you are an evangelist.
Thus, is there any good reason to not be an evangelist ?
F.O.R.
F.O.R
Those are good points. But they’re not about people who are getting paid to evangelise.
If someone speaks passionately about something for little reward, that’s admirable and we’ll respect their sincerity even if we don’t agree with their views.
If someone speaks passionately about something because a big company is paying them to, is that the same thing? Is their passion equally genuine?
I’ve worked for some good companies, but none that I would genuinely speak about with the same passion that you’d see in a religious evangelist or the politicians you mention.
Err… Did you just call Anil Dash a humorless jerk?
LOL
I think it’s an awful term. Yes, someone espousing some idea related to software ought to believe in what they are saying. But an evangelist grounds that belief in faith, not reason.
Similarly, I feel the analogy to religion is poor as well. A religion is not something a man wears like a hat, where he keeps a closet full of them for different occasions. Nor is a religion something to be tweaked according to your needs, although this undoubtedly happens in society. The very best will constantly look to refine their methodologies to fit the ever-changing world. Now suggest that a religion be refined in the same way and you will be met with contempt and disbelief.
Jon Udell just announced he’s going to work for Microsoft. His title will be, you guessed it: Evangelist. No matter what his job title, a great thinker and great guy.
evangelist? no… dont want by ewangelist :?
On the plus side, it’s a title people will REMEMBER. “Senior software engineer of blah blah blah” never really sticks, and most people stop listening to you. But Evangelist… now that’s something that people typically want to know more about and will remember the next time they see you.
Plus, with a title like that, you’re justified when you come to work in a robe carrying a scepter. Who else can get away with THAT?
Sheesh, sometimes people take you too seriously Jeff.
As a religious person AND a programmer, I LOVE the term “evangelist” because its exactly what people see nowadays, all negative images aside from what you see on TV.
There have been plenty of times where I’ve had to “hype up” some ideas for virtual machines, software libraries, or identity management solutions and it gets people interested without getting too “techobabble” on them either.
Keep up the good work. I’m a new reader here to the blog and had to toss in my 10 bits.