[Election] Candidate list with 11 candidates is final, 6 days until election starts!

> Miguel,
>
> 2010/3/6 Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez<[hidden email]>:
>    
>> Woa, and I am a troll because I listed the things I think that are
>> missing in Squeak in order to be easier to use it for commercial thing?
>>      
> no. I think the behavioral pattern that led Karl to his conclusion is
> your way of repeating the same statements over and over again even
> though people repeatedly point you to information that prove you
> wrong.
>
>    
>> Amazed! Well... no, forget it. Once again to all, sorry for disturbing
>> your playfield. I promise myself not to ask nothing else here.
>>      
> I don't think that's necessary. Please be reasonable.
>
> Best,
>
> Michael
>
>
>    

> Ken,
>
> good question.
>
> May I be so impolite as to answer with a counter-question and ask you
> what good it would be? What would be the benefit of having this? Who
> would benefit? What would be the consequences in terms of things
> happening to Squeak? How would Squeak improve? Why would it improve
> more with these things?
>
> If you want my opinion before you answer: I feel much like many of the
> other candidates. It wouldn't be a downright waste of time, but I
> really think valuable time can and should be spent on more
> down-to-earth things that actually make sense to the community and the
> project as a whole.
>

>
> On 7 Mar 2010, at 00:24, Matthew Fulmer wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 07:01:24PM -0500, Matthew Fulmer wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 04:38:22PM -0700, Ken G. Brown wrote:
>
> I would like to know what each candidate thinks about creating
>
> 'Terms of Reference' or 'Terms of Engagement' or
>
> 'Constitution' or 'Clear Governance Articles' or 'Rules and
>
> Regulations' for the Squeak Oversight Board, named something
>
> agreeable, along with a great mission statement.
>
> My opinion is that the members elected to the board should do
>
> what they say they will do in their election statements. The
>
> community votes a set of people to the board, and also each
>
> person's agenda. The sum of the board member's stated agendas is
>
> what the board should be doing.
>
> The board only serves year terms, and can be replaced rather
>
> easily, should the community want to. Thus, I believe the above
>
> is sufficient to ensure that the board adequately represents the
>
> community.
>
> An important corollary I feel is worth stating:
>
> If the board adequately represents the community, its actions
> will generally align with what the community as a whole wants.
>
>
> Or conversely and altogether more likely, the community will align with the
> board. Those who don't like what the board do can leave the community
> immediately since they don't have to wait for an election to vote with their
> feet.
> You actually have to make an effort to ensure that this is not the default
> situation, to practice humility, communication and openness of process.
> In this year in particular the board has forgotten that it was originally
> conceived to advise and oversee. Its official direction as of this time last
> year was that it was not even sure if it should have any involvement in
> technical issues. To the extent that I ignored invitations to run for the
> board, because I didn't see that it had any relevance to myself as an active
> coder.
> If you did want to attract individuals of significant status (e.g Dan
> Ingalls or the likes of Kent Beck) to be on the board, in a board like role,
> in an advisory nature, you will need a clear idea of what the board's role
> is, it cant be a release team at the same time as being a board. If you want
> the board to be a release team, then that needs to be made clear, and I
> could be wrong but I don't think that Kent Beck would be interested in
> hacking trunk. Conversely Edgar clearly feels a need to be elected to be
> heard on release issues.
> The current situation is that the board is arguably partisan to supporting
> the development of  one particular direction which is inextricably tied in
> with the commercial interests of one particular company, and as a
> consequence another company with its own commercial interests has pulled out
> of supporting squeak, and has left the field.
> The board should be working to ensure that this type of situation does not
> happen, or at least to provide a round table for all interested parties to
> converse on equal terms.
> Squeak's viability as a platform stands and falls on the strength and
> maturity of the board as it's primary representation; not the individuals on
> the board, but the board as a political entity in and of itself.
> While the board has no terms of reference, and no vision statement, it has
> no identity in its own right, it is merely a collection of individuals
> running to their own individual agenda's, some more or less altruistic than
> others. In other words it's an accident waiting to happen again.
>

> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> My sense is that Squeak cares about it's legacy software, wants to go
>> smaller in a way that keeps most of those "paleolithic" things
>> loadable.  The easiest way to do that, we feel, is to massage it while
>> it's still in the image, make it unloadable, reloadable, THEN unload
>> it, save the smaller image and deploy that as "core".
>>
> Thank you for saying this, Chris.  I've wanted to write this a few
> times, but wasn't sure how to state it.  This is the thing that I like
> most about the current Trunk process - being able to make changes and
> have the person making the change see several of the places that the
> change will impact.  This then allows them to either alter the change
> (if it breaks too many things) or go ahead and fix the other 'modules'
> that it impacts.  (Such as several of N.C.'s commit storms - fixing
> all of the impacted packages when he it fixing bug in the code.)
>
> Just wish I had more time to contribute to the process.
>
> -ChrisC
>
>