I think it's time. 

At 7:53 PM -0500 2/16/10, Chris Cunnington apparently wrote:
Keith is not the problem.

Ken G. Brown

Chris Cunnington schrieb: -1.

--
Reinhard F. Handl

http://reinhardhandl.wordpress.com/

On Feb 16, 2010, at 5:25 PM, Reinhard F. Handl wrote:


-1 to what?  The notion of banning Keith?  The idea of the board proceeding with maximum speed to fulfill it's mandate?  The idea that the board has such a mandate?  The observation that the cycle is like a sine wave, or that Keith apparently has boundless energy for conflict?

Just curious,
Josh



>
> --
> Reinhard F. Handl
>
> http://reinhardhandl.wordpress.com/
>
>

> The observation that the cycle is like a sine wave, or that Keith  
> apparently has boundless energy for conflict?
>
> Just curious,
> Josh

I have a boundless energy for not being accused of things, like "you  
broke the contribution process, and we fixed it"

You "fixed it" by eliminating the largest contributor and sharer of  
stuff developed for the good of squeak for a couple of years, now  
that's progress.

Keith

On Feb 16, 2010, at 5:55 PM, keith wrote:

>> The observation that the cycle is like a sine wave, or that Keith apparently has boundless energy for conflict?
>>
>> Just curious,
>> Josh
>
> I have a boundless energy for not being accused of things, like "you broke the contribution process, and we fixed it"
>
> You "fixed it" by eliminating the largest contributor and sharer of stuff developed for the good of squeak for a couple of years, now that's progress.
>


Don't be so touchy, I really was curious about exactly what Reinhard disagreed with.  +/-1 works perfectly when the original idea is unambiguous, but in this case can mean many things. Probably he meant -1 to everything, but I'm not sure.

For the record, I did think that Randal came on a bit strong with the "you broke the contribution process".  However, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and chalking it up to fatigue.  

BTW, I was surprised to see that Matthew feels that you and he "set Squeak back 2 years... and caused the Pharo split".  I certainly hope that he's not beating himself up about it as much as that quote suggests.  Many people continue to appreciate the efforts that you made, even if we're doing something different now.

Cheers,
Josh



> Keith
>

On Feb 16, 2010, at 6:03 PM, Reinhard F. Handl wrote:


+1 to that, good sir (with an emphasis on the "constructive")

Cheers,
Josh



>
> cheers, reinhard
>

Chris,

my short answer is "please, no". Explanations below. :-)

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 1:53 AM, Chris Cunnington
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> It's not that Keith is calling Germans dictators, which makes me ill.

His doing so is rather obscene indeed. Some people just don't get 20th
century history.

> It's because he's getting in the way of what I want. I want this board and its
> mandate to move to its stated goals as fast as it can: new license; more
> Andreas wizardry, better image.

And how would banning Keith change that? In other words, is he
physically getting in your way, or just a nuisance? Is he just
distracting you, or really actively hindering you from doing what you
want?

In yet other words: would using an e-mail filter reduce the noise and
help? If so, why ban him?

> Keith Hodges has boundless energy for conflict. This has been going on for a
> couple of months now. He lies low and then he catches the ear of some people
> and energy from some very talented board members gets drained into the sands
> of nothing. This is a cycle that is going to repeat itself like a sine wave.

Everyone is free to read or ignore those never-ending cyclic rants.

Opinions are beyond control, and it is a great achievement that people
have the freedom to utter them as they see fit, even though such
utterances may be considered trollish. I'm not saying there are no
borders that ought not to be crossed, but frankly, Keith has, albeit
arguably trollish at times, not yet done anything that is totally
off-limits. He's been uttering his opinion, which many disagree with,
but there are others that agree with (parts of) it.

So why ban him? What *good* would it be?

> I want him banned.

I think that a community, whatever form it has and whatever shape it
might be in, declares moral bankrupcy if it artificially shuts up
people that are annoying.

Are we really so weak yet? Are we in such a sorry state? Nah, come on.

That Google talk you mentioned aside, I think the old usenet principle
"don't feed the troll" is the way to go for those that believe they
see one.

Best,

Michael

(my last message for tonight; promise :)

keith wrote:
> What particularly annoyed me about the boards actions was the fact that
> mantis is no longer tracking against 3.10.2. This is the biggest recent
> loss for the community, it means that the community has given up,
> (without thinking or discussing) the idea of formally supporting
> existing released images, and this is a HUGE step backwards. A fix on
> mantis which loads into and is tested against trunk is of no use to me,
> I maintain that all fixes should be published to mantis against the
> released image, and that trunk dilutes this in favour of some new future
> release in which all will be fixed if you wait a year or two.

That's not an insurmountable issue if we're willing to work out a
reasonable process. Let me try a straw man proposal: Let's assume that
there's a widely open, free for all, development area called "the
trunk". What goes on here is not for public consumption quite yet, but
rather the current development head. There may be bugs filed against
that head but it's not a requirement since development is ongoing and
you can just commit a fix to keep things simple and straightforward.

Come release time, we create a new repository for the release. We copy
the packages (perhaps when we reach RC status) and only update it with
fixes until released. At that point, the release repository is no longer
open for development, and generally development continues in the trunk.
Any bugs that are found against the published release have to be filed
against Mantis simply because there is no open development branch for a
past release.

At a certain point in time (say, every six months or) we harvest Mantis
  by looking at all the bugs for the released Squeak version(s) and see
if they have been fixed already (by providing change sets, or in the
latest code). We decide which ones we leave open (unresolved), which
ones we acknowledge (but don't fix) and which ones to include in a new
point release. We commit the agreed upon fixes for the point release
into the repository and make it accessible as update as well as download.

Would this work for you? The idea is to combine both the free-for-all
easy access trunk development with managed bug fixing for released
versions. I'm all in favor of the latter (just as long as it doesn't
prevent the former). And obviously, this model can be applied
retroactively to produce 3.10.3.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

On Tue, 2010-02-16 at 19:53 -0500, Chris Cunnington wrote:
> I think it's time.
>

...

I concur. This mailing list is more than a forum for Squeak developers.
It is the principle means of providing technical support to Squeak
users. "The primary mailing list for anyone interested in programming in
Squeak. It is a lively and busy forum for discussion on all things
related to Squeak!" (http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/608)

Last spring I was planning to teach a high school class on Squeak, which
would have included subscribing to this list, even if only to lurk. What
an embarrassment this group has become; I would have to begin every
class with an apology. "Lively and busy" are not synonymous with whining
and vindictive.

In a user support mailing list, people need to be treated with respect,
and they need to see others treated that way. Every list has its upsets,
but the acrimonious atmosphere that has engulfed this list since Keith
Hodges began posting will, without a doubt, drive away all but the most
determined readers. I am not qualified to pass judgment on any
individual or faction here, but one thing is undeniably true: we are
worse off for allowing this to go on.

--
Gary Dunn, Honolulu
[hidden email]
http://openslate.net/
http://e9erust.blogspot.com/
Sent from Slate001

On 2/17/10 6:06 AM, "Andreas Raab" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The idea is to combine both the free-for-all
> easy access trunk development with managed bug fixing for released
> versions. I'm all in favor of the latter (just as long as it doesn't
> prevent the former). And obviously, this model can be applied
> retroactively to produce 3.10.3.

-1

We should go forward and no backwards.
Start to talk about 3.10.3 only for Keith do not complains is no good.

But I wish a proper close of 3.10.2 and a freeze of 3.11 .

We need elections !

Is time to let people say if they want follow the current model.

Or we need a new model.

I want you as Squeak CEO and have my vote.

And also want be in and help to change a little.

Edgar

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 04:32, keith <[hidden email]> wrote:
> [...] certain board members [...]

Hush! You mean He Who Must Not Be Named?

At 7:53 PM -0500 2/16/10, Chris Cunnington apparently wrote:
It certainly isn't. If you will check your 'who said what, I believe you will find:

it wasn't Keith calling Germans Dictators,

Keith said:
"In case you were not aware, some current board members believe that this is a dictatorship and that this is how things are supposed to be run."

It was Randal Schwartz, a board member, stating on #squeak irc that:
"16:58:07 <RandalSchwartz> at some point, it's a dictatorship.  perhaps you never liked that."

> It's because he's getting in the way of what I want. I want this board and its mandate to move to its stated goals as fast as it can: new license; more Andreas wizardry, better image.
>
>Keith Hodges has boundless energy for conflict. This has been going on for a couple of months now. He lies low and then he catches the ear of some people and energy from some very talented board members gets drained into the sands of nothing. This is a cycle that is going to repeat itself like a sine wave. I want him banned.
>
>Chris Cunnington

It's misrepresentation like you have done above that drive me to continue responding.
It's attitudes like yours that need to nipped in the bud.

I have found Keith to for the most part to have always talked sense, and remained civil in the face of insults, lack of respect, bullying tactics and almost no effort on most people's part to understand the process he was describing. If he did anything wrong, it was maybe to tell people where they were going wrong, no one seems to like that. Particularly if they really are wrong. That really seems to make them mad and consequently defensive, and they resort to various escalating personal attacks, misrepresentations, profanity (you know who I am referring to), and worse bullying techniques.

Thank you for the youtube talk mentioned above <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSFDm3UYkeE> which hits a few things on the head in my view, like for instance right near the beginning talking about a healthy open source community:

Build a Strong Community Based on:
Politeness
Respect
Trust
Humility
and:
Have a Mission
Pick a Direction
Limit Your Scope

I think we are currently missing out severely on quite few of these desirable attributes.

Ken G. Brown

I think that main issue why Chris wants Keith banned is not his
position and opinion,
but his continuous and repetituous attacks on a single subject.

With all respect to Keith, and his position, i don't understand why i
need to read the same things over and over again,
why i need to waste time explaining my own position over and over again.
For intelligent/wise people its usually takes 1 or 2 attempts to
understand something. You either understand it, or not and then based
on outcome you either sharing the same thoughts with others or just
leave things as it, because you can't understand or disagree.


--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

Ken,

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 7:35 PM, Ken G. Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:
> It certainly isn't. If you will check your 'who said what, I believe you will find:
>
> it wasn't Keith calling Germans Dictators,
>
> Keith said:
> "In case you were not aware, some current board members believe that this is a dictatorship and that this is how things are supposed to be run."
>
> It was Randal Schwartz, a board member, stating on #squeak irc that:
> "16:58:07 <RandalSchwartz> at some point, it's a dictatorship.  perhaps you never liked that."

I guess that's not the incident that was referred to. More likely,
it'll have been this one (just for the record):

-----
To the board:

~ Fascism is not defined by the number of its victims, but by the way
it kills them. - Satre

regards

victim number 2
-----

... as of January 23rd. I would not have referred to the incident as
"obscene", had I not remembered it.

It is correct that Keith did not directly call any German a dictator
in that message. The reference was thus not accurate, but you cannot
deny such things have been said.

Best,

Michael

At 8:47 PM +0100 2/17/10, Michael Haupt apparently wrote:
I agree many nasty things have been said, a really good example: someone apparently said "I Want Keith Hodges Banned".
And even more importantly, one needs to look at what has been done.
You remember the old saying I'm sure, something like "Your actions speak so loudly that I can no longer hear what you are saying."

Ken G. Brown

Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
I agree with the general inclination of moving forwards, however,
providing fixes is generally a Good Thing (tm), just very resource
intensive. We don't have many resources, so we have to be careful how we
split our energy between moving forwards and supporting existing releases.

What I've been trying to describe is a process that I think we can
actually sustain with the resources we have. That's because we do it
reasonably often (every 6 months), reasonably quickly (2 weeks) and
hopefully automated to some extent. Spending two weeks every six months
to look through Mantis to see what fixes might help an existing release
is time well spent for people using a Squeak release for their own work.

> Start to talk about 3.10.3 only for Keith do not complains is no good.

Mentioning 3.10.3 was intended as a test bed for the process. Kinda like
saying, okay let's just go over Mantis, select fixes that are important,
package them, ship them as 3.10.3. Since we need to start the process
somewhere we might as well start it with 3.10. It would teach us
something about the process.

> But I wish a proper close of 3.10.2 and a freeze of 3.11.

Yes, we talked about it in the board meeting today and I've been tasked
to write something up about it.

> I want you as Squeak CEO and have my vote.

To be clear, I don't want to be a CEO. I'm not sure if you know what
that *actually* implies; I've done the job, I completely hated
everything to do with it. I'm an engineer, a system-builder, not a CEO.

The board itself is truly a board of equals, great and wonderful
personalities who I am proud to associate with. There is only one person
who I'd say does significantly more than anyone else, and that's Ken.
Ken has been by far the biggest surprise to me - he is truly the
secretary, keeping everything together, making sure we have an agenda,
making sure we post the summary, nagging people where necessary, keeping
the communications going, etc.

That Ken isn't running again is a *huge* loss for the next board, much
larger than my absence could ever be. If you have any influence on his
decisions (heck even if not!) send him a note to reconsider, *beg* him
if you must. And I apologize to Ken for putting you on the stand here
but I really, really, really like you to reconsider :-)

Cheers,
   - Andreas

On 2/18/10 3:26 AM, "Andreas Raab" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> That's because we do it
> reasonably often (every 6 months), reasonably quickly (2 weeks) and
> hopefully automated to some extent. Spending two weeks every six months
> to look through Mantis to see what fixes might help an existing release
> is time well spent for people using a Squeak release for their own work.
 Ok
> Mentioning 3.10.3 was intended as a test bed for the process. Kinda like
> saying, okay let's just go over Mantis, select fixes that are important,
> package them, ship them as 3.10.3. Since we need to start the process
> somewhere we might as well start it with 3.10. It would teach us
> something about the process.

Also Ok.
Suppose you have some elaborated about, like to know

> Yes, we talked about it in the board meeting today and I've been tasked
> to write something up about it.

Ok.
The thing is some here in the Far South go to Pharo because they want some
money for his Squeak time.
And they said Trunk as is now is useless.
Remember many don't have 'my bad' English for send mails here.

> To be clear, I don't want to be a CEO. I'm not sure if you know what
> that *actually* implies;

Maybe not CEO .
How about Boss who Cares ?
> I've done the job

And only one Birmingham citizen don't agree

Cheers

Edgar

Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
> And they said Trunk as is now is useless.
> Remember many don't have 'my bad' English for send mails here.

Right. Can you ask them what would make it useful to them?

>> To be clear, I don't want to be a CEO. I'm not sure if you know what
>> that *actually* implies;
>
> Maybe not CEO .
> How about Boss who Cares ?

How about just Joe Average Board Member? ;-)

Cheers,
   - andreas