Leaving SqueakFoundation board

> It certainly would be nice to see people receive some financial
> recognition, but I really don't know how the board would be able
> to accomplish this without pissing somebody off.  A strong benevolent
> dictator would be required, and we do not have that.  The board was
> wise to steer clear of the issue.
>
> Dave
>
>
>  

>On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 04:27:16PM +0200, Hilaire Fernandes wrote:
>  
>
>>Craig Latta a ?crit :
>>
>>    
>>
>>>     Of course, our situation as a community is inherently and
>>>unavoidably political, the scarce resource being the time that people
>>>can spend on Squeak development. I have participated in this community
>>>for its entire existence. I have seen heated exchanges over whose work
>>>should be "accepted", without money at stake. I think the situation is
>>>very likely to be worse if money is involved. It is unclear to everyone
>>>(including Stef, as far as I can tell) which projects are worthy of
>>>bounties, how large each bounty should be, and how preferred submissions
>>>should be chosen. Any one of these ambiguities invites disaster.
>>>      
>>>
>>I don't understand this concern about money. After all money is just the
>> exchange unit used in our world to get work done.
>>The free software communities has been using it at a lot, probably I
>>should even wrote the free software communities is  using it as much as
>>it can. The FSF is using it to support and develop its software, Linux
>>is largely supported that way, and Squeak has been largely developed
>>with money.
>>
>>So really I don't see the concern about money injected by SqF to support
>>Squeak improvement. This is really what is needed.
>>Looks like odd concerns.
>>    
>>
>
>It certainly would be nice to see people receive some financial
>recognition, but I really don't know how the board would be able
>to accomplish this without pissing somebody off.  A strong benevolent
>dictator would be required, and we do not have that.  The board was
>wise to steer clear of the issue.
>  
>

> Ralph Johnson wrote:
>> On 8/19/06, Lic. Edgar J. De Cleene <[hidden email]>  
>> wrote:
>>> Split and Conquer is good ?
>> It is necessary.  It will happen as a community grows larger.
>> Eventually it will split into subcommunities, and the question is how
>> to manage it, not whether it will happen.
>
> Agreed. But the main risk for an experiment like the beginner's  
> list is that it doesn't get enough uptake. Notice that this list  
> (contrary to other communities) wasn't formed by the people  
> affected, but was rather sort of an administrative act. Personally,  
> I was really surprised to find that there is enough of an  
> effectively silent "beginners community" to give that list enough  
> traction. But it's great to see it when it works.

> Hi all -
>
> stéphane ducasse wrote:
>> And I hated the remark that we should do it for fun... sure  
>> harvesting bugs is so incredibily fun and give us so much  
>> energy!!!! ...duh?
>> Look at marcus state of mind now.
>
> Do it for fun or don't do it at all. Unless you're getting paid  
> there is just no point in ruining yourself over it. Coincidentally,  
> I have made that point a couple of times to Marcus, too. But both  
> of you seem to be people who have a very, very hard time to let go.  
> Even just a little.
>
>>>      As Stef says, the Foundation received a donation from ESUG  
>>> in the
>>> past, at his behest. Later, when ESUG initiated its "SummerTalk"  
>>> program
>>> (after a failed last-minute bid for Google sponsorship), Stef
>>> effectively demanded that the Foundation sponsor SummerTalk  
>>> projects. He
>>> threatened us with a negative reaction from ESUG if we didn't use  
>>> its
>>> donation in that way (as he reiterates below).
>> I never said that. I never threatened anybody about that.
>
> Maybe you are unaware about the impact of your English but a  
> statement like "I will report to the ESUG board the situation and  
> they will certainly not agree to give more money for SqF and they  
> will be right." coming from a member of the ESUG board *is* a  
> threat. If you're still the president (http://www.esug.org/about/ 
> boardelectedin2004/) it would be even more of a threat.
>
>> I just said that I could not decently ask ESUG to give us money if  
>> we do nothing with it. The same for other sponsors. I would feel  
>> bad to contact people
>> and ask them to financially support us if we do not have
>> results to show or at least projects to spend the money on.
>
> Well, yes. But you start out with the assumption that you're going  
> to raise money regardless of whether the money is needed or not (an  
> attitude I know from my university days - first get money, then  
> figure out what to do, then get more ;-) This is not necessarily  
> the right attitude for the SqF. If the SqF comes up with an idea  
> that requires funding, then it may be time to go get it. In the  
> mean time, in particular if there is no agreement on how to spend  
> any money, it is probably wiser not to raise any money to avoid  
> precisely the kind of frustration you're describing.
>
>> ESUG gave money to squeak.e.v and we never ask what they did with  
>> it. Now if Squeak.e.v wants more money ESUG will ask what for.
>
> Yes. ESUG should *always* ask what the money is for. You must be  
> living in a different world if people give you money without asking  
> what it's for.
>
>>>        It's great that the beginner list is a success. However, I  
>>> don't
>>> think it makes sense to tie the merit of one idea (bounties) to the
>>> success of another (the beginner list) simply because the same  
>>> person
>>> advocated them both.
>> I was not.
>
> Yes you were. Just like you were trying to tie the previous pragma  
> discussion with Lukas to the current discussion about FFI syntax  
> now. You're doing it all it all the time.
>
>> We never ask for rewards or congratulation. We asked for notice that
>> the situation cannot continue like that and that this is important  
>> to help
>> there and since really few people take care of squeak release and  
>> integration then this is not these people (me and marcus) that will
>> have the time to do it.
>
> I think it's time for both of you to get out of it for a while (see  
> above). Finish up 3.9 and let the board deal with it - if the board  
> is really as incapable as you seem to think it'll show really  
> quickly. In the mean time I happen to think that someone a little  
> less ... ugh ... involved, might be a better person to deal with  
> releases. Less coding, more management, if you know what I mean. Do  
> we have any producers / product manager types out there?
>
>>>      Stef, I'm disappointed that you feel as you do, and wish you
>>> success and fulfillment in however you choose to spend your time.
>> You are so kind and I'm so nasty.
>
> Indeed, this is precisely the way it comes across. Craig wrote a  
> great memo, laying out the issues in what I thought was a  
> remarkably objective and detailed way. Spreading insults in return  
> does make you look rather nasty.
>
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas
>

> Are there actual examples in which the benevolent dictator is  
> formally involved in awarding money? I was under the impression  
> that's a particular task they keep a distance from...
>
> Daniel
>
> David T. Lewis wrote:
>> It certainly would be nice to see people receive some financial
>> recognition, but I really don't know how the board would be able
>> to accomplish this without pissing somebody off.  A strong benevolent
>> dictator would be required, and we do not have that.  The board was
>> wise to steer clear of the issue.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>
>

>
> On 19-Aug-06, at 4:43 AM, stéphane ducasse wrote:
>
>>
>> Of course. But you are really lying how what I said. Thanks a lot  
>> for that Craig.
>> In fact I'm really happy that I left. You are really strange in fact.
> No, Craig is not 'lying'. He may have misunderstood - as you've  
> said yourself, English is sometimes hard for you - or he have  
> overstated. Accusing someone of lying is a fairly seriously  
> unpleasant thing to do and again, I suspect - hope- that you are  
> having trouble with English.

>
> tim
> --
> tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
> Disclaimer:  Any errors in spelling, tact, or fact are transmission  
> errors.
>
>
>
>

> Andreas Raab wrote:
>
>> I think it's time for both of you to get out of it for a while  
>> (see above). Finish up 3.9 and let the board deal with it - if the  
>> board is really as incapable as you seem to think it'll show  
>> really quickly. In the mean time I happen to think that someone a  
>> little less ... ugh ... involved, might be a better person to deal  
>> with releases. Less coding, more management, if you know what I  
>> mean. Do we have any producers / product manager types out there?
>
> I've been thinking the very same thing. I would be happy to offer  
> my services, but I'm reluctant because I'm writing a new business  
> plan. I've managed technology development for video games (Atari  
> (yeah, I hired Craig, but don't hold that against me)), digital TV  
> software mgmt (Philips) and director of product management at  
> OpenTV (interactive TV), to name a few.

> On 20 août 06, at 00:58, Andreas Raab wrote:
>
>> Ralph Johnson wrote:
>>> On 8/19/06, Lic. Edgar J. De Cleene <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Split and Conquer is good ?
>>> It is necessary.  It will happen as a community grows larger.
>>> Eventually it will split into subcommunities, and the question is how
>>> to manage it, not whether it will happen.
>>
>> Agreed. But the main risk for an experiment like the beginner's
>> list is that it doesn't get enough uptake. Notice that this list
>> (contrary to other communities) wasn't formed by the people
>> affected, but was rather sort of an administrative act. Personally,
>> I was really surprised to find that there is enough of an
>> effectively silent "beginners community" to give that list enough
>> traction. But it's great to see it when it works.
>
> because lot of people do not care to talk in the mailing to say what
> they think.
> Lot of people contacted me off-list to support the idea.
>
>>
>> OTOH, just consider what would've happened if the list didn't get
>> the required uptake - the whole idea would have been discredited
>> for years to come. This is why I prefer it if these things form
>> naturally bottom-up and not by top-down decisions.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>   - Andreas

>> BTW, its quite possible that someone might get pissed off no matter
>> how you do it, but that's part of life. The question is doing it in a
>> manner that only upsets few people, and encourages active people. If
>> we can vote in a board, we can certainly award some funds.
>
> Unless it affects upfront promises, yes, I think we can. For example, I
> could easily imagine the SqF awarding some money to further the
> development of traits, spoon or whatever else. What I could *not*
> imagine is any upfront promise that the result of that work will be the
> basis for any particular Squeak release. Unfortunately, there seems to
> be a tendency to think that way because otherwise the money is
> considered "wasted" not counting that the gain in knowledge may be more
> valuable than the artifact.

>
>> BTW, its quite possible that someone might get pissed off no matter
>> how you do it, but that's part of life. The question is doing it in a
>> manner that only upsets few people, and encourages active people. If
>> we can vote in a board, we can certainly award some funds.
>
> Unless it affects upfront promises, yes, I think we can. For example,
> I could easily imagine the SqF awarding some money to further the
> development of traits, spoon or whatever else. What I could *not*
> imagine is any upfront promise that the result of that work will be
> the basis for any particular Squeak release. Unfortunately, there
> seems to be a tendency to think that way because otherwise the money
> is considered "wasted" not counting that the gain in knowledge may be
> more valuable than the artifact.

> [python has paid projects]
> Andreas Raab wrote:
>> Uhm, well I don't think this is a bragging point ;-) Looking at it  
>> I notice these grants were given out once (in Oct '04) where based  
>> on the period of the grant (12 months) it was clearly intended to  
>> be repeated. Why it wasn't repeated I'm not sure about but it may  
>> have something to do with the fact that the above page says for  
>> two of the three projects that they were still under development  
>> as of Jan '06 and only one was finished. These are volunteer  
>> communities after all.
> That some projects will never be "complete" is to be expected -  
> that's risk for you ;-) This doesn't make sponsoring projects  
> impossible or automatically unwise... Its possible the Google  
> summer of code model is a better one http://code.google.com/ 
> summerofcode05.html they at least link to plenty of CVS/SVN  
> repositories :-)
>>
>>> BTW, its quite possible that someone might get pissed off no  
>>> matter how you do it, but that's part of life. The question is  
>>> doing it in a manner that only upsets few people, and encourages  
>>> active people. If we can vote in a board, we can certainly award  
>>> some funds.
>>
>> Unless it affects upfront promises, yes, I think we can. For  
>> example, I could easily imagine the SqF awarding some money to  
>> further the development of traits, spoon or whatever else. What I  
>> could *not* imagine is any upfront promise that the result of that  
>> work will be the basis for any particular Squeak release.  
>> Unfortunately, there seems to be a tendency to think that way  
>> because otherwise the money is considered "wasted" not counting  
>> that the gain in knowledge may be more valuable than the artifact.
> Sure. So you're not against sponsoring SummerTalk projects next  
> summer, as long as nothing gets promised? to me it even makes sense  
> that the mentor should be the maintainer of some code (so inclusion  
> is obviously controlled where it should be), and that his decision  
> whether the project is complete (and deserving payment) is only  
> partly linked to his taking the code (so he can decide a project is  
> good, but not good enough).
>
> Daniel
>
>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:squeak-dev-
> [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Andreas Raab
> Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2006 8:15 PM
> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> Subject: Re: Stef's departure from the SqueakFoundation board
>
> Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> > Well, Python does it:
> >
> > http://www.python.org/psf/grants/
>
> Uhm, well I don't think this is a bragging point ;-) Looking at it I
> notice these grants were given out once (in Oct '04) where based on the
> period of the grant (12 months) it was clearly intended to be repeated.
> Why it wasn't repeated I'm not sure about but it may have something to
> do with the fact that the above page says for two of the three projects
> that they were still under development as of Jan '06 and only one was
> finished. These are volunteer communities after all.
>
> > BTW, its quite possible that someone might get pissed off no matter how
> > you do it, but that's part of life. The question is doing it in a manner
> > that only upsets few people, and encourages active people. If we can
> > vote in a board, we can certainly award some funds.
>
> Unless it affects upfront promises, yes, I think we can. For example, I
> could easily imagine the SqF awarding some money to further the
> development of traits, spoon or whatever else. What I could *not*
> imagine is any upfront promise that the result of that work will be the
> basis for any particular Squeak release. Unfortunately, there seems to
> be a tendency to think that way because otherwise the money is
> considered "wasted" not counting that the gain in knowledge may be more
> valuable than the artifact.
>
> Cheers,
>    - Andreas
>