FW: [squeak-dev] [Election] ...is soon upon us! Last day info

> Hi all!
>
> Ok, so tonight at 18.00 UTC the actual voting period starts. It goes
> like this:
>
> - Around 18.00 UTC tonight you will get an email from the CIVS
> voting system with a link in it. You have one week to click on that
> link and vote.
>
> - If you realize that you never got this email it can be because of
> mail problems or that you aren't on the voter list. Send me an email
> in either case and I will try to sort it out.
>
> - If you voted last year you are already on the list.
>
> I will accept new voters during the whole voting week! I will also
> do my best to fix any issues with ballots gone missing in the SMTP
> jungle.
>
> regards, Göran

>
>
> Jamas hubiera pensado que K tuviera razon...
>
> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: keith <[hidden email] <keith_hodges%40yahoo.co.uk>>
> Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> <[hidden email]<squeak-dev%40lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> >
> Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:48:56 +0000
> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> <[hidden email]<squeak-dev%40lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> >
> Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] [Election] ...is soon upon us! Last day info
>
>
> > Hi all!
> >
> > Ok, so tonight at 18.00 UTC the actual voting period starts. It goes
> > like this:
> >
> > - Around 18.00 UTC tonight you will get an email from the CIVS
> > voting system with a link in it. You have one week to click on that
> > link and vote.
> >
> > - If you realize that you never got this email it can be because of
> > mail problems or that you aren't on the voter list. Send me an email
> > in either case and I will try to sort it out.
> >
> > - If you voted last year you are already on the list.
> >
> > I will accept new voters during the whole voting week! I will also
> > do my best to fix any issues with ballots gone missing in the SMTP
> > jungle.
> >
> > regards, Göran
>
> Dear All,
>
> for the record I am not voting, since the squeak board is now
> irrelevant noise.
>
> The board cannot even manage a mission statement and maintain that
> (see below), terms of reference are a distant hope, the idea of this
> farce becoming an official legal entity, yet not seeing the need to
> have any constitution or rules at all for how it conducts itself,
> would be a joke of immense hilarity if it wasn't serious.
>
> Here is the mission statement as advertised:
>
> http://squeakboard.wordpress.com/our-mission/
>
> > The Squeak Oversight Board coordinates the community¹s open-source
> > development of its versatile Smalltalk environment.
> >
> Ok let examine this line, "co-ordinates". This involves doing some
> actual work, talking to people, discussing things weighing up ideas,
> and making considered informed decisions. "Co-ordinates" means, that
> the board doesn't actually "Do Stuff" but it relies on others to do
> stuff which it then co-ordinates through helpful advice perhaps.
> > To that end, we are increasing our visibility
> >
> Cant argue with that.
> > within the community through better communication,
> >
> In the introduction of "trunk", there was zero repeat ZERO pre
> discussion about the idea with those that it effected. All existing
> avenues of communication were ignored, and existing best practice was
> ignored such as using a "release mailing list" as used by the board-
> endorsed "release team". Also specific requests for preferences to
> communicate on the release mailing list were ignored, when this had
> actual practical and financial implications.
>
> In a world of modern communications when we have irc and skype and we
> are on the other side of the world and I get free calls to anywhere in
> the world 24/7. But does the board know how to use email? Andreas says
> that perhaps this was a mistake, however it wasn't his mistake, it was
> the board's mistake, to allow a new direction to be mandated without
> requiring a proposal, a consultation and a vote of sorts over a period.
>
> As a member of the community I had to follow a formal procedure to
> satisfy the board. Members of the board are exempt from any such
> formality. Thus it is now perceived by some as a requirement to have a
> position on the board to be heard. If you have a commercial interest
> in squeak, if you do not have a position on the board, you do not have
> an equal representation as compared to others who do have a position
> on the board.
>
> The board should be strictly impartial in relation to commercial
> interests, while it is not, it is not trustable.
> > improving the release process,
> >
> The release process, is the bit which takes an image, adds some fixes,
> updates packages to their latest versions, adds licensing,
> documentation, sets the version number, and zips up the result.
>
> I have just witnessed Ronald, or whatever his name is ;-) do this for
> Squeak 4.0, and it was done Manually, exactly the same as every other
> release, and the process itself took at least 3 weeks, when an
> automated process (which we already had) would take 3 minutes.
>
> So much for improving the release process. Nothing has changed.
> > joining the Software Freedom Conservancy, enabling Teams to achieve
> > their tasks,
> >
> This is comical. How did the board "enable" me to achieve my task. To
> do this they would have to communicate (see first paragraph) They just
> undermined everything I had done, then and told me I don't have enough
> Charisma, and "the end justifies the means".
> > and integrating contributions from collaborating groups (for
> > example, Pharo, Etoys, and Croquet).
> >
> "integrating contributions", to me means that we treat all of these
> groups as part of the community and try to create processes that work,
> and manage some of it in common between them, and we act for them as
> an enabler.
>
> Does the new "trunk" process introduced by the board this year do
> this? No it doesn't it, it is exclusive to squeak itself as a fork. It
> just enables more people to contribute to squeak as its own fork,
> speeding up the process of diversion between forks, It discourages the
> development of features in common with other forks, specifically it
> does not treat the development of features as distinct load-able
> entities that are integrated.
>
> Recent statements by board members have indicated that the board
> doesnt aim to represent anyone else other than the squeak fork,
> whereas before we had a feeling of responsibility for providing tools
> and services to benefit all of our many "prodigy".
>
> The board continues to treat previous releases as abandon-ware. We
> don't even look after our existing users.
> > Our goals for this year are a **clear** release process for the 3.x
> > series,
> >
> Trunk doesn't have any clear indication of what will or will not be in
> it.
> it doesn't have any development plan or timeline
> it doesn't have any packaging system where stuff can be clearly
> organised.
> it doesn't have any automated testing
> it doesn't have any automated release process.
> it doesn't adopt any best practices such as XP, release early and
> often so releases are not time boxed, everything is far from clear.
> > a license-clean Squeak 4.0 release,
> >
> This was a goal. How long ago? If I had to manually rewrite every
> method effected 3 times, it could have been done quicker. The problem
> with this goal was that everyone talked about it, no one on the board
> actually did anything.
>
> (apart from asking the 3.11 release team leader to do the job on
> squeak 4.0, without asking the release team, and consequently leaving
> us a man down)
> > a solid legal foundation,
> >
> The board members have resisted all attempts to suggest that a
> constitution is a necessary thing. Without it the board has no
> identity in and of itself, it is merely a collection of randomly
> selected, "charismatic" individuals. How you would achieve becoming a
> legal entity without any rules at all is anyone's guess.
> > and a draft programming interface for exchanging code between systems.
> >
> No sign of this.
>
> (except I have developed it recently)
> > With these, we believe the community will be more effective in
> > developing for itself and in introducing the system to newcomers.
> >
> I agree if the board actually did any of these things it might. But at
> the moment they are still patting themselves on the back saying what a
> great "trunk" process we have got, and what wonderful charismatic
> leaders we now have. When it is the opposite process of what is needed
> if you actually sit down and think about the problem as a whole.
>
> Anyone can hack a new image, but is the process itself capable of
> acheiveing what we want(ed) to achieve. Given that package management
> is left to be an after thought leads me to think not.
> > Please note that this is a work in progress and we appreciate any
> > comments or suggestions that you may have.
> >
> This is my comment.
>
> Now for my suggestions:
>
> If you have a commercial interest in developing with squeak, you will
> be far better off taking control and forking the image for yourself,
> maintaining your own branch. So at least you have the level of control
> needed to maintain the required stability, and the image you use will
> be maintained (by you).
>
> Working towards this goal, of having control over your own image,
> individuals and groups who want to help will publish innovations in a
> separately managed load-able form, that are not tied to any one image.
>
> When this mechanism is in place, none of the forks is any different to
> any other fork, each is merely a configuration of loaded packages on
> one or many starting points.
>
> When the tools are available such that the level of control you have
> over your own image, is higher than the level of control you have over
> the image you are given by the board. The board in its current
> "glorified release team form" becomes irrelevant.
>
> If Kent Beck or others of his calibre were running for the board then
> I would vote.
>
> regards
>
> Keith
>
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>
>  
>

>
>
> Parece que los hechos se la están dando........igual, eso no implica que el
> haya hecho todo bien,
> tocó muchas cosas he hizo algunos desastres importantes......
>
>
> Yo no comparto nada de lo que hizo y todo el tiempo estuve en contra
> mientras estaba.
> Me refiero a los comentarios acerca del Board y de como deben ser las
> cosas.
>
> Una vez mas.
> Está claro, al menos para la gente del bar , que lo único que me interesa
> es la release?
> Y que tengo mis serias dudas que me dejen hacerla como creo que debe ser ?
> Es por eso que necesito estar en el Board.
> Sino, va a ser casi imposible.
> Según veo, lo que yo ya tengo de hace rato en SqueaklightII y en
> MinimalMorphic recien con suerte va a estar en el 4.2.
> Y sino, será certificar que Pharo va a seguir con vueltas de ventaja.
> Al menos hoy me enteré por un pajarito que el Maestro Diego piensa que
> Squeak está cada vez mejor.
>
>