4.1 release tasks
Locked
123
123
 
|
On 19.03.2010, at 19:00, Ken G. Brown wrote:
> > At 10:55 AM -0700 3/19/10, Colin Putney apparently wrote: >> On 2010-03-19, at 9:37 AM, Ken G. Brown wrote: >> >>> Ok, I've set up a simple blog to help the SOB out. >>> >>> SQUEAK OVERSIGHT BOARD >>> THE SQUEAK OVERSIGHT BOARD (SOB) GENERAL FAQ, GUIDELINES AND OPERATING PROCEDURES >>> <http://squeakoversightboard.blogspot.com/> >> >> Wow. I can't think of any situation in which speaking on behalf of someone else, without their permission, would be OK. Ken, how would you feel if I created a blog called kengbrown.blogspot.com and started posting stuff you didn't agree with? >> >> Colin > > I set the blog up for the SOB to use as they see fit. The SOB has a blog, thank you very much. Please take this down. - Bert - |
|
|
At 7:37 PM +0100 3/19/10, Bert Freudenberg apparently wrote:
>On 19.03.2010, at 19:00, Ken G. Brown wrote: >> >> At 10:55 AM -0700 3/19/10, Colin Putney apparently wrote: >>> On 2010-03-19, at 9:37 AM, Ken G. Brown wrote: >>> >>>> Ok, I've set up a simple blog to help the SOB out. >>>> >>>> SQUEAK OVERSIGHT BOARD >>>> THE SQUEAK OVERSIGHT BOARD (SOB) GENERAL FAQ, GUIDELINES AND OPERATING PROCEDURES >>>> <http://squeakoversightboard.blogspot.com/> >>> >>> Wow. I can't think of any situation in which speaking on behalf of someone else, without their permission, would be OK. Ken, how would you feel if I created a blog called kengbrown.blogspot.com and started posting stuff you didn't agree with? >>> >>> Colin >> >> I set the blog up for the SOB to use as they see fit. > >The SOB has a blog, thank you very much. Please take this down. > >- Bert - Thank you for your opinion. Ken G. Brown |
|
|
>>>>> "Ken" == Ken G Brown <[hidden email]> writes: Ken> At 7:37 PM +0100 3/19/10, Bert Freudenberg apparently wrote: >> The SOB has a blog, thank you very much. Please take this down. >> >> - Bert - Ken> Thank you for your opinion. It's not an opinion, it's a request from a board member. As another board member, I also add my voice to this. Take it down. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <[hidden email]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion |
|
|
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg
On 19 March 2010 20:39, Ken G. Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:
> At 7:37 PM +0100 3/19/10, Bert Freudenberg apparently wrote: >>On 19.03.2010, at 19:00, Ken G. Brown wrote: >>> >>> At 10:55 AM -0700 3/19/10, Colin Putney apparently wrote: >>>> On 2010-03-19, at 9:37 AM, Ken G. Brown wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ok, I've set up a simple blog to help the SOB out. >>>>> >>>>> SQUEAK OVERSIGHT BOARD >>>>> THE SQUEAK OVERSIGHT BOARD (SOB) GENERAL FAQ, GUIDELINES AND OPERATING PROCEDURES >>>>> <http://squeakoversightboard.blogspot.com/> >>>> >>>> Wow. I can't think of any situation in which speaking on behalf of someone else, without their permission, would be OK. Ken, how would you feel if I created a blog called kengbrown.blogspot.com and started posting stuff you didn't agree with? >>>> >>>> Colin >>> >>> I set the blog up for the SOB to use as they see fit. >> >>The SOB has a blog, thank you very much. Please take this down. >> >>- Bert - > > Thank you for your opinion. > Ken, there is already a blog for SOB [1]. Do you really think that making another one will help? [1] http://squeakboard.wordpress.com/ > Ken G. Brown > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Randal L. Schwartz
At 12:30 PM -0700 3/19/10, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> >>>>> "Ken" == Ken G Brown <[hidden email]> writes: > >Ken> At 7:37 PM +0100 3/19/10, Bert Freudenberg apparently wrote: >>> The SOB has a blog, thank you very much. Please take this down. >>> >>> - Bert - > >Ken> Thank you for your opinion. > >It's not an opinion, it's a request from a board member. As another >board member, I also add my voice to this. > >Take it down. > >-- >Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 ><[hidden email]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> >Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. >See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion Thank you also for your opinion. It is not clear to me who on the board has the authority to ask me to take it down? All 7 perhaps unanimously like you mentioned was the signing requirement for the SOB? Or a majority 4/7? A designated member in charge of communications? It is unclear to me who even can speak on behalf of the SOB. So far, two SOB members are quite vocal on this list against the FAQ blog as it exists, one other SOB member spoke up on #squeak with some good points. So far I can only imagine how the SOB makes decisions, and so far you are only one of the very vocal minority. Ken G. Brown |
|
|
On 19.03.2010, at 20:46, Ken G. Brown wrote:
> > At 12:30 PM -0700 3/19/10, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: >>>>>>> "Ken" == Ken G Brown <[hidden email]> writes: >> >> Ken> At 7:37 PM +0100 3/19/10, Bert Freudenberg apparently wrote: >>>> The SOB has a blog, thank you very much. Please take this down. >>>> >>>> - Bert - >> >> Ken> Thank you for your opinion. >> >> It's not an opinion, it's a request from a board member. As another >> board member, I also add my voice to this. >> >> Take it down. >> >> -- >> Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 >> <[hidden email]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> >> Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. >> See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion > > Thank you also for your opinion. > > It is not clear to me who on the board has the authority to ask me to take it down? > All 7 perhaps unanimously like you mentioned was the signing requirement for the SOB? Or a majority 4/7? A designated member in charge of communications? It is unclear to me who even can speak on behalf of the SOB. > > So far, two SOB members are quite vocal on this list against the FAQ blog as it exists, one other SOB member spoke up on #squeak with some good points. > So far I can only imagine how the SOB makes decisions, and so far you are only one of the very vocal minority. > > Ken G. Brown Even your fellow community members asked you to stop this silliness. - Bert - |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ken G. Brown
Ken, thanks for trying to help. I don't think this blog does that, I'd prefer to see it removed/renamed.
I think most of the community is pretty weary of procedural and governance topics and would prefer to buckle down to some squeak development for at least a few weeks. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ken G. Brown
Ken, I'm not on SOB but I strongly request you to remove that blog,
immediately! Janko On 19. 03. 2010 20:46, Ken G. Brown wrote: > At 12:30 PM -0700 3/19/10, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: >>>>>>> "Ken" == Ken G Brown <[hidden email]> writes: >> >> Ken> At 7:37 PM +0100 3/19/10, Bert Freudenberg apparently wrote: >>>> The SOB has a blog, thank you very much. Please take this down. >>>> >>>> - Bert - >> >> Ken> Thank you for your opinion. >> >> It's not an opinion, it's a request from a board member. As another >> board member, I also add my voice to this. >> >> Take it down. >> >> -- >> Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 >> <[hidden email]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> >> Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. >> See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion > > Thank you also for your opinion. > > It is not clear to me who on the board has the authority to ask me to take it down? > All 7 perhaps unanimously like you mentioned was the signing requirement for the SOB? Or a majority 4/7? A designated member in charge of communications? It is unclear to me who even can speak on behalf of the SOB. > > So far, two SOB members are quite vocal on this list against the FAQ blog as it exists, one other SOB member spoke up on #squeak with some good points. > So far I can only imagine how the SOB makes decisions, and so far you are only one of the very vocal minority. > > Ken G. Brown > > -- Janko Mivšek AIDA/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ken G. Brown
Ken G. Brown wrote:
> At 7:37 PM +0100 3/19/10, Bert Freudenberg apparently wrote: > >> On 19.03.2010, at 19:00, Ken G. Brown wrote: >> >>> At 10:55 AM -0700 3/19/10, Colin Putney apparently wrote: >>> >>>> On 2010-03-19, at 9:37 AM, Ken G. Brown wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Ok, I've set up a simple blog to help the SOB out. >>>>> >>>>> SQUEAK OVERSIGHT BOARD >>>>> THE SQUEAK OVERSIGHT BOARD (SOB) GENERAL FAQ, GUIDELINES AND OPERATING PROCEDURES >>>>> <http://squeakoversightboard.blogspot.com/> >>>>> >>>> Wow. I can't think of any situation in which speaking on behalf of someone else, without their permission, would be OK. Ken, how would you feel if I created a blog called kengbrown.blogspot.com and started posting stuff you didn't agree with? >>>> >>>> Colin >>>> >>> I set the blog up for the SOB to use as they see fit. >>> >> The SOB has a blog, thank you very much. Please take this down. >> >> - Bert - >> > > Thank you for your opinion. > > Ken G. Brown Stop fucking with us and take it down. Juan Vuletich Ps. I apologize to everybody but Ken for the tone of this message. |
|
|
At 5:55 PM -0300 3/19/10, Juan Vuletich apparently wrote:
>Ken G. Brown wrote: >>At 7:37 PM +0100 3/19/10, Bert Freudenberg apparently wrote: >> >>>On 19.03.2010, at 19:00, Ken G. Brown wrote: >>> >>>>At 10:55 AM -0700 3/19/10, Colin Putney apparently wrote: >>>> >>>>>On 2010-03-19, at 9:37 AM, Ken G. Brown wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Ok, I've set up a simple blog to help the SOB out. >>>>>> >>>>>>SQUEAK OVERSIGHT BOARD >>>>>>THE SQUEAK OVERSIGHT BOARD (SOB) GENERAL FAQ, GUIDELINES AND OPERATING PROCEDURES >>>>>><http://squeakoversightboard.blogspot.com/> >>>>>> >>>>>Wow. I can't think of any situation in which speaking on behalf of someone else, without their permission, would be OK. Ken, how would you feel if I created a blog called kengbrown.blogspot.com and started posting stuff you didn't agree with? >>>>> >>>>>Colin >>>>> >>>>I set the blog up for the SOB to use as they see fit. >>>> >>>The SOB has a blog, thank you very much. Please take this down. >>> >>>- Bert - >>> >> >>Thank you for your opinion. >> >>Ken G. Brown > >Stop fucking with us and take it down. > >Juan Vuletich > >Ps. I apologize to everybody but Ken for the tone of this message. Thank you for your opinion. Ken G. Brown |
|
|
>>>>> "Ken" == Ken G Brown <[hidden email]> writes:
Ken> Thank you for your opinion. Shared by 100% of the people who have now spoken out about this. You have 0 supporters. You have at least 4 challengers, 3 of which are on the SOB. What *is* your condition of satisfaction to do the *majority* thing here now? Do you need an election with 100 voters agreeing? The timeliness and form of your answer will say as much as your actual answer. Choose wisely. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <[hidden email]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ken G. Brown
On Mar 19, 2010, at 12:46 PM, Ken G. Brown wrote: > It is not clear to me who on the board has the authority to ask me to take it down? > All 7 perhaps unanimously like you mentioned was the signing requirement for the SOB? Or a majority 4/7? A designated member in charge of communications? It is unclear to me who even can speak on behalf of the SOB. I don't understand that the point of this "experiment" is. I'll take a guess: are you trying to demonstrate that if the SOB doesn't have a set of explicit rules about how to act in such situations, then some asshole can undermine the SOB's leadership and generally disrupt the community? Maybe that's true, but there are two things that you're missing: 1) It's not clear whether it's even possible to create a set of rules that would be 100% asshole-resistant. Certainly nobody has proposed any. 2) Over the 12 years I've been in this community, we haven't had problems with assholes trying to break the community for the sheer hell of it. Maybe I've totally missed the point of your "experiment". If so, please enlighten us. What is your hypothesis? What data are you gathering, and how will it confirm or deny your hypothesis? Why do you think you're being helpful? In the meantime, I add myself to the growing list of people asking you to take the blog down. Please. Cheers, Josh |
|
|
On 3/19/2010 2:33 PM, Josh Gargus wrote:
> I don't understand that the point of this "experiment" is. I'll take a guess: are you trying to demonstrate that if the SOB doesn't have a set of explicit rules about how to act in such situations, then some asshole can undermine the SOB's leadership and generally disrupt the community? But even if such rules existed, compliance with them would be entirely voluntary. The board only has the power that the Squeak community voluntarily assigns to them. Speaking hypothetically, an asshole could for example set up a blog named thesqueakboard.wordpress.com and there is nothing we could do about it, except from completely ignoring it. I suggest that we do just that and stop feeding the troll. Cheers, - Andreas |
|
|
In reply to this post by Josh Gargus
At 2:33 PM -0700 3/19/10, Josh Gargus apparently wrote:
>On Mar 19, 2010, at 12:46 PM, Ken G. Brown wrote: > >> It is not clear to me who on the board has the authority to ask me to take it down? >> All 7 perhaps unanimously like you mentioned was the signing requirement for the SOB? Or a majority 4/7? A designated member in charge of communications? It is unclear to me who even can speak on behalf of the SOB. > > >I don't understand that the point of this "experiment" is. I'll take a guess: are you trying to demonstrate that if the SOB doesn't have a set of explicit rules about how to act in such situations, then some asshole can undermine the SOB's leadership and generally disrupt the community? Maybe that's true, but there are two things that you're missing: > >1) It's not clear whether it's even possible to create a set of rules that would be 100% asshole-resistant. Certainly nobody has proposed any. > >2) Over the 12 years I've been in this community, we haven't had problems with assholes trying to break the community for the sheer hell of it. > >Maybe I've totally missed the point of your "experiment". If so, please enlighten us. What is your hypothesis? What data are you gathering, and how will it confirm or deny your hypothesis? Why do you think you're being helpful? > >In the meantime, I add myself to the growing list of people asking you to take the blog down. Please. > >Cheers, >Josh The experiment was to provide the SOB with an easy way to post some pertinent FAQ items that the community in general would find helpful. Hypothesis was 'Perhaps if it were really easy, the SOB would put some FAQ type items up" Data gathered to date: "4 out of 7 SOB members are opposed to the blog as presented" (one spoke on #squeak) 1 responded in a somewhat ambiguous way, perhaps opposed. Other data: the responses speak for themselves. Interesting how when people do not agree with something, they immediately resort to overt or subliminal personal attacks, then profanity, then who knows what comes next. It is gone. Ken G. Brown |
|
|
In reply to this post by Josh Gargus
On 20 March 2010 00:17, Ken G. Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:
> At 2:33 PM -0700 3/19/10, Josh Gargus apparently wrote: >>On Mar 19, 2010, at 12:46 PM, Ken G. Brown wrote: >> >>> It is not clear to me who on the board has the authority to ask me to take it down? >>> All 7 perhaps unanimously like you mentioned was the signing requirement for the SOB? Or a majority 4/7? A designated member in charge of communications? It is unclear to me who even can speak on behalf of the SOB. >> >> >>I don't understand that the point of this "experiment" is. I'll take a guess: are you trying to demonstrate that if the SOB doesn't have a set of explicit rules about how to act in such situations, then some asshole can undermine the SOB's leadership and generally disrupt the community? Maybe that's true, but there are two things that you're missing: >> >>1) It's not clear whether it's even possible to create a set of rules that would be 100% asshole-resistant. Certainly nobody has proposed any. >> >>2) Over the 12 years I've been in this community, we haven't had problems with assholes trying to break the community for the sheer hell of it. >> >>Maybe I've totally missed the point of your "experiment". If so, please enlighten us. What is your hypothesis? What data are you gathering, and how will it confirm or deny your hypothesis? Why do you think you're being helpful? >> >>In the meantime, I add myself to the growing list of people asking you to take the blog down. Please. >> >>Cheers, >>Josh > > The experiment was to provide the SOB with an easy way to post some pertinent FAQ items that the community in general would find helpful. > Hypothesis was 'Perhaps if it were really easy, the SOB would put some FAQ type items up" > > Data gathered to date: > "4 out of 7 SOB members are opposed to the blog as presented" (one spoke on #squeak) > 1 responded in a somewhat ambiguous way, perhaps opposed. > > Other data: the responses speak for themselves. > > Interesting how when people do not agree with something, they immediately resort to overt or subliminal personal attacks, then profanity, then who knows what comes next. > > It is gone. > taking a disruptive actions. > Ken G. Brown > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ken G. Brown
On 3/19/2010 3:17 PM, Ken G. Brown wrote:
> The experiment was to provide the SOB with an easy way to post some pertinent FAQ items that the community in general would find helpful. > Hypothesis was 'Perhaps if it were really easy, the SOB would put some FAQ type items up" I think a better hypothesis is this one: Perhaps if there actually were a good FAQ, the SOB might put it up prominently in some place? Simply put, you're confusing content with visibility. The board has ample opportunity to make things visible but if the content is bad (like in your FAQ that was a bunch of scraped Emails from Squeak-dev) wide visibility is actually harmful. > Data gathered to date: > "4 out of 7 SOB members are opposed to the blog as presented" (one spoke on #squeak) > 1 responded in a somewhat ambiguous way, perhaps opposed. Make that five. More importantly, the opposition is towards impersonating the board, calling your blog squeakboardsomethingorother, pretending it would actually represent the board. I'm pretty sure nobody on the board is opposed to a good FAQ, but I'm also pretty sure nobody likes some random guy pretending to represent the board in his private blog. Cheers, - Andreas |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ken G. Brown
On 2010-03-19, at 12:46 PM, Ken G. Brown wrote: > Thank you also for your opinion. > > It is not clear to me who on the board has the authority to ask me to take it down? > All 7 perhaps unanimously like you mentioned was the signing requirement for the SOB? Or a majority 4/7? A designated member in charge of communications? It is unclear to me who even can speak on behalf of the SOB. So, because there's no documentation about who can speak for the board, you claim that right for yourself, and refuse to recognize the right of actual board members to do so? Wow. You have an extraordinary ability. If I had to maintain that level of contradiction in my mind, I'd start to question my own existence and have an existential meltdown. Colin PS. On behalf of no one but myself, I request that you take down the blog. |
|
|
On Mar 19, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Colin Putney wrote: > > On 2010-03-19, at 12:46 PM, Ken G. Brown wrote: > >> Thank you also for your opinion. >> >> It is not clear to me who on the board has the authority to ask me to take it down? >> All 7 perhaps unanimously like you mentioned was the signing requirement for the SOB? Or a majority 4/7? A designated member in charge of communications? It is unclear to me who even can speak on behalf of the SOB. > > So, because there's no documentation about who can speak for the board, you claim that right for yourself, and refuse to recognize the right of actual board members to do so? I wish that I had said it so well. Cheers, Josh |
|
|
In reply to this post by Andreas.Raab
At 4:08 PM -0700 3/19/10, Andreas Raab apparently wrote:
>On 3/19/2010 3:17 PM, Ken G. Brown wrote: >>The experiment was to provide the SOB with an easy way to post some pertinent FAQ items that the community in general would find helpful. >>Hypothesis was 'Perhaps if it were really easy, the SOB would put some FAQ type items up" > >I think a better hypothesis is this one: Perhaps if there actually were a good FAQ, the SOB might put it up prominently in some place? > >Simply put, you're confusing content with visibility. The board has ample opportunity to make things visible but if the content is bad (like in your FAQ that was a bunch of scraped Emails from Squeak-dev) wide visibility is actually harmful. > >>Data gathered to date: >>"4 out of 7 SOB members are opposed to the blog as presented" (one spoke on #squeak) >>1 responded in a somewhat ambiguous way, perhaps opposed. > >Make that five. More importantly, the opposition is towards impersonating the board, calling your blog squeakboardsomethingorother, pretending it would actually represent the board. I'm pretty sure nobody on the board is opposed to a good FAQ, but I'm also pretty sure nobody likes some random guy pretending to represent the board in his private blog. > >Cheers, > - Andreas * I created the blog, not as my private blog, but as something the members of the SOB could easily use via the posting email address. * I quickly posted some emails that had recently gone by publicly on the list, which had content, part of which would make good FAQ material eg. the 7 SOB members would all sign the contract with SFLC. eg. your release process * I did not edit the emails content because someone would have been sure to take offense at that * I did edit the email addresses in order to obscure them from public viewing * I was not impersonating or pretending to be the SOB, this blog was for you, the SOB to use as you saw fit. * the content was easily editable I find the personal attacks, derogatory accusations, quality of responses in general with respect to my creation of the blog for the SOB to use, to be very, very disappointing. Ken G. Brown |
|
|
In reply to this post by Colin Putney
At 4:24 PM -0700 3/19/10, Colin Putney apparently wrote:
>On 2010-03-19, at 12:46 PM, Ken G. Brown wrote: > >> Thank you also for your opinion. >> >> It is not clear to me who on the board has the authority to ask me to take it down? >> All 7 perhaps unanimously like you mentioned was the signing requirement for the SOB? Or a majority 4/7? A designated member in charge of communications? It is unclear to me who even can speak on behalf of the SOB. > >So, because there's no documentation about who can speak for the board, you claim that right for yourself, and refuse to recognize the right of actual board members to do so? At the time I did not know whether everyone on the SOB felt the same way or whether it was just the vocal 3/7 minority. It seemed to me at the start that the SOB in general would welcome an easy way to post stuff to a FAQ type place. Boy was I wrong. I suppose I was logically assuming that a majority would be the way it might work, perhaps not. Perhaps everyone on the SOB speaks individually on behalf of the SOB. Ken G. Brown >Wow. You have an extraordinary ability. If I had to maintain that level of contradiction in my mind, I'd start to question my own existence and have an existential meltdown. > >Colin > >PS. On behalf of no one but myself, I request that you take down the blog. |
«
Return to Squeak - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |