1 day left for Squeak elections!

Everybody who's been invited to vote, needs to do so in the next 24
hours.  The election ends Thursday Feburary 23rd 2006 midnight UTC.

Total authorized voters: 343
Actual votes cast so far: 125

If you haven't already, please read the candidate statements found on
http://people.squeakfoundation.org/article/53.html
You can also take a look at the recent "Candidate statements" thread
on squeak-dev.

A handful of people have asked that I re-send their invitation to
vote.  If anyone else can't find their invitation, let me know *soon*
- I'd hate for anyone not to get to vote for that reason.

Thanks,
Brent

Hi all!

"Brent Vukmer" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Everybody who's been invited to vote, needs to do so in the next 24
> hours.  The election ends Thursday Feburary 23rd 2006 midnight UTC.
>
> Total authorized voters: 343
> Actual votes cast so far: 125

And to quote myself from a posting to the election team list:

"I was just trying to make you understand that if you even get 100
people
voting it would be a thundering success. My bet is below 50, but we will
see."

...by which I now personally consider our first public vote to be a
success! :)
And no, I am not kidding.

But of course I hope we could at least get up to say 200 (about 60% of
eligible voters) before this day is over

regards, Göran

[hidden email] wrote: This says to me that the community, although small, cares about
leadership and where squeak is heading.

brad

On 2/23/06, Brad Fuller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> Total authorized voters: 343
> >> Actual votes cast so far: 125
> >>
> This says to me that the community, although
> small, cares about
> leadership and where squeak is heading.
>

Well... As a fraction of squeak-dev subscribers, we're at roughly
10%... Maybe I'm a pessimist (unlikely) or maybe my expectations are
too high, but that's not really much. It's probably enough to declare
a usable election result, but I really do hope that next year, we can
make a leap to a substantially higher proportion of list subscribers
(which, I think, is maybe half of the community of squeak developers -
purely a guesstimate from the number of people I meet who are involved
in various open source projects but don't subscribe to the
accompanying mailing lists).

Cees De Groot wrote: Ok.. let's look at this:
This is the first election.
10 candidates 7 positions
There are 343 registered voters.
Of that approx 35% have voted so far.

I say that's pretty good:
* for a first election
* there are 10 candidates. WOW! not 3 candidates and 7 positions. People
stepping up wanting to make a difference.
* where the campaign to bring in voters was small (did the reach go
beyond developer mailing lists? And, how many that are signed up to the
ML are really reading the messages?)
* all the bugs for signing up voters hasn't been worked out yet  (e.g.
even today Doug just sent a msg about email problems.)
* the presentation of candidates and their platform could be better. I
didn't see that every candidate presented their platform or even
introduced themselves. Not a reflection on the candidates, but a
reflection on the method... it's young.. taking baby steps..

Hey, I'm not really an optimist... but that sounds pretty good to me.

brad

Cees De Groot puso en su mail :

> Well... As a fraction of squeak-dev subscribers, we're at roughly
> 10%... Maybe I'm a pessimist (unlikely) or maybe my expectations are
> too high, but that's not really much. It's probably enough to declare
> a usable election result, but I really do hope that next year, we can
> make a leap to a substantially higher proportion of list subscribers
> (which, I think, is maybe half of the community of squeak developers -
> purely a guesstimate from the number of people I meet who are involved
> in various open source projects but don't subscribe to the
> accompanying mailing lists).

Maybe if nobody wish reelection and votes counts for each person.

Or if "masters" behave like you, gentle with people , good leading and not
trying all do his way.

I vote only in the hope what new people and some of old correct the crash
course to the iceberg, what shy people don't say but thing is the current
3.9 release.

Edgar



       
       
               
___________________________________________________________
1GB gratis, Antivirus y Antispam
Correo Yahoo!, el mejor correo web del mundo
http://correo.yahoo.com.ar 

> From: Cees De Groot
> Well... As a fraction of squeak-dev subscribers, we're at roughly
> 10%... Maybe I'm a pessimist (unlikely) or maybe my expectations are
> too high, but that's not really much.

It's similar to other software development elections I've seen over the
years.

> It's probably enough to declare a usable election result

Let's hope so.  The acid test will be whether there are howls of protest
from the community once the results are declared.

                - Peter

On 23.02.2006, at 20:19, Lic. Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
What exactly do you not like with 3.9a? Would be really interesting  
to know.

You don't like Traits, ok. I accept that. Do you have had any direct  
negative
consequences due to Traits in 3.9a? Which have that been?

Are there any other problems in 3.9a? Did you do a bug-report abou them?

It is of course the decision of the new SqF board what to do with  
3.9a, if the
board decides that it is complete crap, they should throw it away.

      Marcus

Marcus Denker puso en su mail :

> It is of course the decision of the new SqF board what to do with
> 3.9a, if the
> board decides that it is complete crap, they should throw it away.
If 3.9 was the good product what you believe, what its the logic of a 3.8.1
release ?

All time I read about legal consequences of using Squeak, what if Disney
charges who cause actual Squeak don't read jpg  because they just wish base
his killer app on this ?

And people what only have poor dial up connection what in old good times
connect and retrieve updates (as Smalland SqueakPlugin-dev.image  still
does) .

Now they should pay huge money if wish do the 12 mb download each few days.

I see you are working on the new releases now, and I know you are a good a
dedicated Squeaker, so maybe things improve soon.

And all my sends was complete ignored, so I fix my own Squeak , do
tutorials, train students, and sit and wait until winds change.

Edgar




       
       
               
___________________________________________________________
1GB gratis, Antivirus y Antispam
Correo Yahoo!, el mejor correo web del mundo
http://correo.yahoo.com.ar 

"Lic. Edgar J. De Cleene" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Marcus Denker puso en su mail :
>
> > It is of course the decision of the new SqF board what to do with
> > 3.9a, if the
> > board decides that it is complete crap, they should throw it away.
> If 3.9 was the good product what you believe, what its the logic of a
3.8.1
> release ?

This is standard branching behaviour.

Squeak 3.9's an ALPHA product - if it doesn't have weird bugs, we're not
doing enough in the product! It's practically _supposed_ to break and behave
weirdly. Then, once we've messed around with new, cutting edge/bleeding edge
features, and as we iron out the bugs, 3.9 becomes a beta. Finally, it
becomes the new standard version. And we start breaking things all over
again in 3.10-alpha.

3.8.1's a bugfix release, so that people using 3.8 don't have to suffer a
year's wait, working around bugs that made it through 3.8's beta phase,
before they can see bugfixes for 3.8.

frank

On 24.02.2006, at 12:05, Lic. Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:

> Marcus Denker puso en su mail :
>
>> It is of course the decision of the new SqF board what to do with
>> 3.9a, if the
>> board decides that it is complete crap, they should throw it away.
> If 3.9 was the good product what you believe, what its the logic of  
> a 3.8.1
> release ?
>

Bugfixes? Every software project in the world does this: There are  
stable and unstable
  branches of Linux, for example.
This is industry practice, and good one. It was just ignored by the  
Squeak community until now.

> All time I read about legal consequences of using Squeak, what if  
> Disney
> charges who cause actual Squeak don't read jpg  because they just  
> wish base
> his killer app on this ?
>
Not that I understant what you are saying...
But in general: How are the legal problems with the license related  
to what we added to 3.9a?

> And people what only have poor dial up connection what in old good  
> times
> connect and retrieve updates (as Smalland SqueakPlugin-dev.image  
> still
> does) .
>
> Now they should pay huge money if wish do the 12 mb download each  
> few days.
>

This is indeed a problem that I, too want to see fixed. The current  
setup with
MC is far from perfect.

> I see you are working on the new releases now, and I know you are a  
> good a
> dedicated Squeaker, so maybe things improve soon.
>
> And all my sends was complete ignored, so I fix my own Squeak , do
> tutorials, train students, and sit and wait until winds change.

Are your changes in the Mantis Bugtracker? Keep in mind that there  
are over 300 items
in the bug tracker... we can not garantee to react on everything  
directly.

         Marcus

Marcus Denker puso en su mail :

> Not that I understant what you are saying...
> But in general: How are the legal problems with the license related
> to what we added to 3.9a?
3.9.7001 could use jpg ? No ? 3.9. 6705 yes, so someone broke and I want jpg
back.

> This is indeed a problem that I, too want to see fixed. The current
> setup with
> MC is far from perfect.
Then use plain old .cs , as in old good times, I have cable modem, but I
guess many, many people wish udpate often and have only unreliable dial-up.

> Are your changes in the Mantis Bugtracker? Keep in mind that there
> are over 300 items
> in the bug tracker... we can not garantee to react on everything
> directly.

You are saying same thing different, Mantis is difficult, and real masters
are busy for reviewing things.

In one case I have a two years wait for a trivial fix and my original send
was great improved by Scott Wallace.
His explain of how the all thing should be is one of the first what I show
to my students of very good Squeak code and things to note.
And still all community should wait two years...

I send a proposal for unify the different clases, globals, etc what keep
pictures into image and example to my own team and still  waiting why is not
a good solution.
And this is crucial for shrink the image properly...

Send proposal for cleaning Morph and same.

Send fixes for Nebraska to Yoshiki , but he is overloaded with work and is
the final authority for the subject.

But It's not about me, I could be happy with my own things, and never send
another mail.

You are a master, so don't overreact to complaints, I was the Advocatus
Diaboli because nobody want be the most hated Squeaker :=)

Edgar




       
       
               
___________________________________________________________
1GB gratis, Antivirus y Antispam
Correo Yahoo!, el mejor correo web del mundo
http://correo.yahoo.com.ar 

Marcus Denker wrote:
> This is indeed a problem that I, too want to see fixed. The current
> setup with
> MC is far from perfect.
provide xdelta[1] or bsdiff[2] files then? some stats:
7000: zip 13495279 bytes, image 20750832 bytes, changes 22681123 bytes
7001: zip 13481005 bytes, image 20679256 bytes, changes 22723916 bytes
7002: zip 13511250 bytes, image 20707776 bytes, changes 22798872 bytes


bsdiff files
7000-7001: image 299297 bytes, changes 5534 bytes
   total: 234831 bytes
7001-7002: image 981158 bytes, changes 11060 bytes
   total: 992268 bytes

they only work against the originally downloaded file, but that could be
at least a usable workaround until there's some way to do a proper image
update via MC.


patrick mauritz

[1] http://sourceforge.net/projects/xdelta/
[2] http://www.daemonology.net/bsdiff/

On 24.02.2006, at 13:04, Lic. Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:

> Marcus Denker puso en su mail :
>
>> Not that I understant what you are saying...
>> But in general: How are the legal problems with the license related
>> to what we added to 3.9a?
> 3.9.7001 could use jpg ? No ? 3.9. 6705 yes, so someone broke and I  
> want jpg
> back.
>

Ah, there is a bug in the Traits implementation wrt. to primitives.  
The Traits guys
now how to fix it, so this will be definitely fixed soon.

You know, 3.9 is in "alpha" which means: "Please test, but we are  
sure that there
are problems".

Yes, these cases happen... and this used to be *very* much worse in the
past!

We tried to improve getting community submissions in, but this does  
not mean
that there is a garantee of having a reaction to everything you send.

> I send a proposal for unify the different clases, globals, etc what  
> keep
> pictures into image and example to my own team and still  waiting  
> why is not
> a good solution.
> And this is crucial for shrink the image properly...
>

So, did you add this this mantis? Stuff sent to the list by email are  
lost
very soon.

> Send proposal for cleaning Morph and same.
>
There is a Team for Morphic. Are you on the Mailinglist?

      Marcus

On 24.02.2006, at 13:07, Patrick Mauritz wrote:

Good idea! I will do that.

       Marcus

Edgar

We will fix the traits but adrian was working on free seaside hosting  
and he has two job per week.
So we will have to wait. but this will be fixed.

You know that we are working hard to make a better system.
Now you can shot us if you want. What can I say?
Our goal is to have a small image and fixing a lot of problems/bugs  
fixes.

Now .cs are not the future. All the good project work with MC  
(croquet, sophie,
seaside, tweak....

For the bug fixes the situation really improved. I do not want to  
tell you how many I had to redo certain kernel
cleans in the past and before there were just ignored!!!

So we should stress MC and improve it. I think that we are doing that  
and MC is really
reacting well (of course this could be improved).

I think that the Morphic team is responsible of that. So we follow  
their point of view.

> Send proposal for cleaning Morph and same.
>
> Send fixes for Nebraska to Yoshiki , but he is overloaded with work  
> and is
> the final authority for the subject.
>
> But It's not about me, I could be happy with my own things, and  
> never send
> another mail


Stef

Marcus Denker a écrit :
We also need like Linux a maintainer for the stable and the unstable
branches. When the 3.9 stable version will be out, we have to find
someone (or a team) for doing 3.9.1, 3.9.2, ... versions.


--                                                         oooo
Dr. Serge Stinckwich                                     OOOOOOOO
Université de Caen>CNRS UMR 6072>GREYC>MAD               OOESUGOO
http://purl.org/net/SergeStinckwich                       oooooo
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]   \  /
                                                             ##

Hi Stef -

Two notes on your message:

> Our goal is to have a small image [...]

I will point out that since 3.6 (the first version where we had a
distinction between basic and full and where an image got substantially
smaller) the basic image has only grown; now to a size where it rivals
the size of 3.6 full. Mind you, the *basic* 3.9 image is almost as large
as the *full* 3.6. You can draw your own conclusions from that (easily
verifiable) fact.

> Now .cs are not the future. All the good project work with MC (croquet,
> sophie, seaside, tweak....

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but for our next project at VPRI we just
pulled out of Monticello. In short, Monticello is a great way of doing
things if you have an environment which is based on "builds" (e.g., you
basically throw existing content away, build a new system and load that
content back in).

For maintaining a live system Monticello is simply a nightmare. It's
slow, it doesn't work in the right way for incremental migrations and
you are spending 90% of your time to deal with situations that change
sets solve in a nano-second. It's simply not worth the hazzle for
maintaining a live system.

So I wouldn't declare change sets dead quite yet; neither would I claim
they are "not the future" when it comes to maintaining a live system. In
fact, I believe they are. For example, just compare how long it takes to
update a 3.7 to 3.8 image vs. 3.8 to 3.9 - it literally takes *ages*, it
requires "extra" change sets to do things that Monticello simply cannot
do and by the end of the day updating a 3.8 to current 3.9 alpha doesn't
even work. I cannot recall a single case of where this has ever happened
with change sets.

I think a discussion about how Monticello fits a working style that can
be used to maintain a live system is overdue by now. Having been there,
having seen the immense pain Monticello inflicts on both sides of the
maintenance chain (not only is it a pain for the person doing the
maintenance, it is also a pain for the person on the receiving end of
the maintenance) I think we can say with some certainty that Monticello
fails in this regard and that another approach is needed.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

Il giorno sab, 25/02/2006 alle 09.54 +0100, Serge Stinckwich ha scritto:
> Marcus Denker a écrit :

>
> We also need like Linux a maintainer for the stable and the unstable
> branches. When the 3.9 stable version will be out, we have to find
> someone (or a team) for doing 3.9.1, 3.9.2, ... versions.

Couldn't the 3.9 team do that?

        Giovanni

Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> wrote:
What happened to the ST-80 version management from Steve Putz?
(Smalltalk-80: The Interactive Programming Environment, pp. 480-484).

Regards
Wolfgang