Contributors Agreement signature status?

Hi Avi and everyone--

  

There were two principles I was following. The first was that,
occasionally, a system requires important fundamental changes to
remain vital. I refer to previously-expressed concepts of "blue
plane" or "burn the disk packs" thinking. (I hesitate to use those
particular phrases, because I think much of their power in this
community derives from nostaliga. I do think, however, that they
truly were valid ideas.) I came to believe that the Squeak community
was particularly receptive to these ideas, not just [to] the people
espousing them or the funding they represented.

The second principle was that discussion of a shared vision could
ameliorate the lack of a short-term gain, and even hasten the
implementation of the vision by attracting volunteers. There was a
time in the Squeak community, it seemed to me, when we could discuss
the merits of an idea before the implementation was finished. I
found it useful, and inspiring. This is why I have been writing
progress reports for Spoon and asking for feedback.
      

Aha.  My personal observation has been that this principle does not
hold.  One piece of evidence I have is the various version control
systems I have worked on for Squeak.  The current version of
Monticello arose through a series of very incremental and (in
retrospect) "unnecessary" early versions (including "DVS" before it
was called "Monticello"), but each of which was released as a working
and useful artifact without any prior discussion.

For Monticello 2, on the other hand, we've released plenty of
information, tried to open discussion many times, asked for volunteers
at several points, but never released something that people could
actually use for their daily work.  Result: apart from Damien who
recently got some funding to work on it, we've had no response
whatsoever. This despite the fact that MC2 is a much better and more
ambitious design than any of the prior versions of MC.

I've seen similar patterns with Seaside versions over the years:
discussions about the future go precisely nowhere.  Ditto experimental
branches for people to play with.  But make a deep change that still
lets people get their work done and nobody blinks.
    

     Okay, but if the second principle doesn't hold, then I don't see
how the first one can have any actual significance in this community. To
use Koestler's "bisociation" metaphor[1] yet again, it seems that where
I want to go is simply not reachable through any path we're collectively
willing to take.

     So, it seems I must go there myself (with those few others who can
take some time away from getting work done, or who can somehow
rationalize the effort itself as getting work done :). Only then, if the
result is practical for use by everyone else, should I ask for
consideration here. I can accept that, although I find it disappointing
and surprising given my early experiences with the community. But it's
still not clear to me what the community would consider "practical",
despite a few attempts some have made to elaborate (I appreciate the
attempts anyway).

     In the absence of meaningful planning by the Squeak community on
whether, when, and how to use Spoon, those working on it[2] can only
leave those decisions to others. Oh, and I suppose those with funding
can feel free to speak up at any time. :)

     In short (too late! ;), I won't press this further, you all know
where to find Spoon info if you want it[3]. I'll keep helping in other
ways. Thanks for reading.


-C

[1] ...the "blue/pink planes" stuff, e.g. as mentioned by Kay from 17:25
    onward in http://tinyurl.com/ok5df (video.google.com).

[2] ...it's not just me, although I am coordinating it.

[3] http://netjam.org/spoon

--
Craig Latta
improvisational musical informaticist
www.netjam.org
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]
  

-- 

Trygve Reenskaug      mailto: [hidden email]
Morgedalsvn. 5A       http://folk.uio.no/trygver
N-0378 Oslo           Tel: (+47) 22 49 57 27
Norway 
 

Hi--

     Trygve writes:

  

The idea of "burn the disk packs" was a fundamental mistake; it
doesn't take into account that the value of a release image is
minuscule compared to the value added by user/programmers. The idea of
a personal computer cannot be reconciled with the idea of throwing
everything away every few years. What about my address book, my diary,
the useful program I wrote two years ago, the program I'm working on
now. (My programs are part of my personal data)
    

     Well, I wasn't asking anyone to throw anything away. I was asking
for planning. Continuity is actually very important to me. Indeed, if it
weren't, I wouldn't have taken the tactic of changing Squeak into what I
want; I would have made something completely new. I'm also putting a lot
of work into paths from current Squeak to Spoon (e.g., adapting my VM
and remote browsing changes to Squeak 3.9).
  

I am afraid you expect too much from the community.
    

     It seems so.

  

I am working on my own pet project(s). Like everyone else, I am trying
to avoid committing /error 33: Predicating one research effort upon
the success of another.
(http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/E/error-33.html)
    

     Ah, but I think we take that too far and commit error 34 (insisting
upon small incremental changes *at all times*) and error 35 (being
unwilling to imagine a way to achieve larger changes in the future). I
think these are much worse than error 33, and as an exquisite case in
point I present the very origin of that term, Xerox PARC. :)

  

Still, I do want to try SPOON. But I got wary when I followed the
installation directions and immediately crashed. Perhaps the project
hasn't got as far as I expected.
    

     It is indeed alpha software currently, as marked. Still, I hadn't
thought that would keep people from considering possibilities.
  

Cheers
--Trygve 

-- 

Trygve Reenskaug      mailto: [hidden email]
Morgedalsvn. 5A       http://folk.uio.no/trygver
N-0378 Oslo           Tel: (+47) 22 49 57 27
Norway 
 

Hi--

     Trygve writes:

  

The idea of "burn the disk packs" was a fundamental mistake; it
doesn't take into account that the value of a release image is
minuscule compared to the value added by user/programmers. The idea of
a personal computer cannot be reconciled with the idea of throwing
everything away every few years. What about my address book, my diary,
the useful program I wrote two years ago, the program I'm working on
now. (My programs are part of my personal data)
    

     Well, I wasn't asking anyone to throw anything away. I was asking
for planning. Continuity is actually very important to me. Indeed, if it
weren't, I wouldn't have taken the tactic of changing Squeak into what I
want; I would have made something completely new. I'm also putting a lot
of work into paths from current Squeak to Spoon (e.g., adapting my VM
and remote browsing changes to Squeak 3.9).
  

I am afraid you expect too much from the community.
    

     It seems so.

  

I am working on my own pet project(s). Like everyone else, I am trying
to avoid committing /error 33: Predicating one research effort upon
the success of another.
(http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/E/error-33.html)
    

     Ah, but I think we take that too far and commit error 34 (insisting
upon small incremental changes *at all times*) and error 35 (being
unwilling to imagine a way to achieve larger changes in the future). I
think these are much worse than error 33, and as an exquisite case in
point I present the very origin of that term, Xerox PARC. :)

  

Still, I do want to try SPOON. But I got wary when I followed the
installation directions and immediately crashed. Perhaps the project
hasn't got as far as I expected.
    

     It is indeed alpha software currently, as marked. Still, I hadn't
thought that would keep people from considering possibilities.
  

Cheers
--Trygve 

-- 

Trygve Reenskaug      mailto: [hidden email]
Morgedalsvn. 5A       http://folk.uio.no/trygver
N-0378 Oslo           Tel: (+47) 22 49 57 27
Norway