Leaving SqueakFoundation board

Hi,

I want to thank the people that voted for me but I will leave the  
squeakfoundation board.
I would like to thank the people that gave money to the foundation  
when it was not even something
that was based on election. Thank you all for all the trust you put  
on me. Really this was a warm feeling
and I took my responsibility quite seriously. I had dreams but I  
could not make them reality. But
may be my dreams were dangerous too.

I have a different vision of what the foundation can do to push  
squeak. This is already a moment that I was
hesitating to leave (and put myself my own deadline). I realize that  
this is  weakening the foundation
but I prefer to leave now and focus on cool other stuff. Still I  
encourage everybody to support the foundation
and I'm sure that some cool stuff will happen.

Now you can know what I think in a nutshell and I'm sure other  
boarder will rectify me if I'm wrong.
I wanted the foundation to push some development of infrastructural  
elements (process for
release team supported tools [1], fixing infrastructural aspects,  
test server, MC2...) but
on one hand, there is not enough money (but we could collect money)  
and more important
other consider that this can destroy the community (which can be true).
       
I got mad because if the foundation cannot afford to help the people  
doing the dirty work
(integrating bugfixes and creating new release) then I give it a  
limited interest. I think that this is a dream
to think that Squeak happen just like that. Of course one can argue  
that open-source is to work the nights on your
night sleep and it is easy to say that if this is not fun to do it we  
should stop doing it, but it is another to do
not without any support. And the foundation could have acknowledge  
this fact. Since it did not, I went mad
and deciding to spend my good energy in better stuff.

        [1] seriously the release team CANNOT continue to work the way it  
worked.
        I do not want to see marcus burnt like that and get sick of Smalltalk.
        I prefer to see him inventing the next squeak compiler and for that  
we need better tools to support
        and invent the process. Because we can invent a lot of fun stuff too.

I think that the board will do a good job without me. So if you want  
to organize an election at least we will have
some animation and opportunity to talk (or communicate).

Stef

PS: if some of you are interested in gathering some money so that we  
get something done please contact me
off-list.

Stéphane Ducasse wrote: Can you clarify why you are leaving, Stef? I don't understand if it's
because you want to spend you energy on something cool, or that you are
feed up with the way the Foundation is operating.  What are the top
reasons you are leaving?

brad

mismatch of vision.

Stef

Hi brad

as I said:

I proposed since months the squeakfoundation to help in the first  
place the release team because we had a really hard-time.
Helping by allocating some money to suppot the dev of some tools that  
we do not have the time to develop like
a build process tools. I did a first sketch (quite dry) of the  
behavior of such a tool.
And basically the answer of two of the three members yesterday was  
that "if you do not do it for fun then you should drop it"
I found that answer totally insane and I got mad and I do not want to  
hear about the SqF even if I was the first member of it.

Note that I pushed ESUG to give money and put in place the sponsoring  
program so that we can get money to
do stuff to help squeak. But now I'm sorry but I have not the time to  
fight, so now SqF has money for the servers.
Excellent!

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.
I'm sad for the people that put their trust in my intentions and  
sponsor us in the hope to see stuff moving.
Of course the foundation is a first step having an entity that  
represents squeak, so this is good. It would be even better
if it would move faster but this is like that.

Stef

PS:  If you look at the success of the beginner mailing-list. Nobody  
ever told me
that this was good that I pushed it but I had to argue argue that  
this was needed.
And now it is a really cool place to be.


On 17 août 06, at 17:44, Brad Fuller wrote:

On 8/17/06, stéphane ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:
> mismatch of vision.
>
> Stef

A man is rescued after 20 years alone on a desert island. His rescuer
is astonished to find that the castaway has built several imposing
structures.

"Wow!" the rescuer says. "What's that beautiful stone building
overlooking the bay?"

"That is my home," the castaway says.

"And what about that building over there, with the spires?"

"That," the castaway says, "is my church."

"But wait!" the rescuer says. "That building over there, with the bell
tower. What is that?"

"That is the church I used to belong to, but I couldn't stand the
politics anymore."

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 18:34:58 +0200, stéphane ducasse wrote:
> PS:  If you look at the success of the beginner mailing-list. Nobody  
> ever told me
> that this was good that I pushed it but I had to argue argue that this  
> was needed.

No pain, no gain, Stef.

> And now it is a really cool place to be.

Because so many squeak-dev'ers are so kind and take care of the messages  
of the beginners, for which we have to thank them very, very much!

And, of course, because it's "A friendly place to get answers to even the  
most basic questions about Squeak." :)

/Klaus

:)

On 17 août 06, at 18:38, John Pierce wrote:

> No pain, no gain, Stef.

this is a christian view of the world that you propose to me :)

>> And now it is a really cool place to be.
>
> And, of course, because it's "A friendly place to get answers to  
> even the most basic questions about Squeak." :)

Yes!
:)

Hi all--

     I don't mean to speak for the entire Squeak Foundation board of
directors in this message, only for myself. The primary challenge we
face as a board is a lack of coordinated free time (exacerbated by
multiple timezones). We are also presented with an awkward situation.
Rather than let more time pass coming up with some sort of official
group response, I'd like to voice my opinion. I ask the indulgence of
the other board members here. I also apologize in advance to everyone
for such a long message.

     My perception is that Stef left the board because another board
member and I don't support the way he thinks the Foundation should spend
money. Stef proposed a "bounty" system to motivate Squeak development.
My opinion is that such a system is not worth the additional political
risks to the community.

     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.

     And there are other problems with the idea. There is no reliable
funding source for such a system. People do donate to the Foundation
(which is wonderful), but the income is sporadic. I would hate for such
a system to commence, only to stall in the future due to a lack of
funds. I think the community would ultimately hurt itself by fostering
an expectation of financial motivation which is unsustainable. At the
very least, I would want a bounty system to be funded in advance for a
significant term. I don't think that's gong to happen any time soon. I
think we're better off using what money the Foundation has to pay
unavoidable expenses (such as, yes, keeping servers running).

     Stef writes:

> Note that I pushed ESUG to give money and put in place the sponsoring
> program so that we can get money to do stuff to help squeak. But now
> I'm sorry but I have not the time to fight, so now SqF has money for
> the servers. Excellent!

     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). We acceded. Personally, I
decided this was the best to spend that money, just to diffuse the
conflict. I think that, as far as possible, the Foundation should be
able to act independently. If a donor wants to earmark funds for a
particular purpose, it should say so before donating so that the board
can consider that when deciding whether to accept the money.

> 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.

     If that's what it takes to avoid this situation in the future, then
I would agree with them wholeheartedly.

> If you look at the success of the beginner mailing-list. Nobody ever
> told me that this was good that I pushed it but I had to argue argue
> that this was needed.
>
> And now it is a really cool place to be.

     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. Furthermore, there were several members of the
community with reasonable doubts about the beginner list. Stef wasn't
just debating the board on that issue, so bringing it up in a discussion
of internal board conflict doesn't make much sense to me either.

     At that point in the conversation, it seemed to me that Stef was
making another demand, that someone *owed* him more than gratitude for
the work he had done. He complained that he and another member of the
release team had become physically ill from their exertion. I found this
very disturbing. No one should feel obligated to push themselves to
physical illness for a volunteer effort.

     The other board member and I reminded Stef that we're all in the
same situation here. We all realize that everyone's time is precious and
scarce. No one has the right to tell someone else how to spend their
time. The flipside is that no one has the right to complain about how
much time they've volunteered. And I can just see how much worse this
would be with money at stake: "What? You're not going to choose my
submission for the bounty? But I worked so hard on it!" and so on.

     What the other board member actually said to Stef was that if the
work was taking such a toll, he hoped for Stef's sake that he would take
a break from it. I think he said this more out of concern for Stef's
health than to reiterate a point about volunteerism. But I still think
the point is valid, as harsh as it can sound to someone who has expended
a great deal of effort. The last thing I want for any community is an
argument about who the biggest martyr is.

***

     On a practical note, the board is now deciding what to do about the
vacancy left by Stef, since there is currently no policy about this.

     Stef, I'm disappointed that you feel as you do, and wish you
success and fulfillment in however you choose to spend your time.


     thanks for reading,

-C

--
Craig Latta
www.netjam.org

>      thanks for reading,
>
thanks for writing. I can just add that, for the record, I'm 100% with
you on every issue you brought up.

(which reminds me that I should finally transfer the SqF server to
Squeak e.V. before *I* exert myself beyond my limited financial
capacity)

Craig Latta puso en su mail :

>> If you look at the success of the beginner mailing-list.

Split and Conquer is good ?
What people have n list on each ignoring the others is good  ?

> No one has the right to tell someone else how to spend their
> time.

And nobody OWNS Squeak

>     Stef, I'm disappointed that you feel as you do, and wish you
> success and fulfillment in however you choose to spend your time.
>


Me too. Stef do a terrific job and all are in debt.


Edgar



       
       
               
__________________________________________________
Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí.
Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas,
está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta).
¡Probalo ya!
http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas

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.

Squeak already has various subcommunities, such as Croquet, the
Spanish and French groups, and the various groups inside companies.
If it becomes more successful, there will be more of these.

The book "Crossing the Chasm" describes this as a key part of
marketing a new technology.  You need to target one new market after
another, and you change your message for each one to meet the needs of
the market.  The newbies list is just another market that needed its
own message.

-Ralph Johnson

Hola Edgar,

> >> If you look at the success of the beginner mailing-list.
> Split and Conquer is good ?

To be a conqueror is not the only way of been...
Split can reveal diferent points of views/been and
 can be observed on open systems/mediums ( it is
 related with diversity).
Split is a observable event when alternatives are
 present.
Conquist is an observable when reduction of
 alternatives are forced (most times to inhibit
 diverse ways of been).
Split and conquer are not good nor bad,
 they are "observables" (also called "side effects"
 of success/growing)

> What people have n list on each ignoring the others is good  ?

They can't ignore each other, because as they
 differ in pov, they also will have common roots...

Smalltalk as a marginal alternative to build
 software has presented situations like the
 presented/suffered by Stef in other contexts,
 times and places :-)

^1 abrazo
Ale.




----- Original Message -----
From: "Lic. Edgar J. De Cleene" <[hidden email]>
To: "squeakdev" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2006 7:05 AM
Subject: Re: Stef's departure from the SqueakFoundation board

I have to comment because sometimes you have a strange view at what I  
said. This
is certainly due to my french.

>      My perception is that Stef left the board because another board
> member and I don't support the way he thinks the Foundation should  
> spend
> money. Stef proposed a "bounty" system to motivate Squeak development.
> My opinion is that such a system is not worth the additional political
> risks to the community.

I did not left because you did not accept a bounty system. This is  
wrong and you know it
but may be you were not understanding what I said. You can send the  
log of our con
versation or open the mailing-list if you want.

I agreed that a bounty system involves a risk that it may be wise to  
take. This is
why I was discussing ways how to push the community and how to spend  
money.

But I left because I think that SqF could at least think that it  
should help the work of the
integrators by investing a bit of money making the process better.
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.
If the squeak foundation can not support the most important squeak  
activity = creation of new release
and improvement then I thought that I have not the time to lose there.

You remember certainly that I did a bad draft of a requirement list  
for a build system
and I got No reaction. I also left because six months to think and  
decide about a
new web site for squeakF is too long for me.


Exact!
This is why I pushed but not heavily the bounty system and I was  
trying to
find solutions.

But this way nothing happens.

I never said that. I never threatened anybody about that. 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.

> We acceded. Personally, I
> decided this was the best to spend that money, just to diffuse the
> conflict.

I think that sponsoring SummerTalk is easy to get projects done in  
squeak
and it was simple to associate SqF with action. This way we could  
present SqF as an
active entity promoting squeak and smalltalk. It was cheap and easy.  
No time
from us.

> I think that, as far as possible, the Foundation should be
> able to act independently. If a donor wants to earmark funds for a
> particular purpose, it should say so before donating so that the board
> can consider that when deciding whether to accept the money.

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.

ESUG gave the money but never put string on it. I was just saying  
that if we do
not do anything with the money then we cannot ask for sponsors or money.
So participating to Summertalk for 500 Euro was a simple and  
practical way to
get visibility as an entity doing things for squeak (three or 4  
projects on 5 of the SummerTalk
are developed on Squeak and two projects are about the compiler and  
fast loading).

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.

>> 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.
>
>        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. I was just showing that sometimes it takes more energy to  
discuss
endlessly than to do things. Because if I would not have push the  
idea so far
we would still be discussing about pros and cons for a mailing-list  
(do you imagine
a mailing-list).

> Furthermore, there were several members of the
> community with reasonable doubts about the beginner list. Stef wasn't
> just debating the board on that issue, so bringing it up in a  
> discussion
> of internal board conflict doesn't make much sense to me either.

Exact!
but sometimes moving things is important, great wise.

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.

> The other board member and I reminded Stef that we're all in the
> same situation here. We all realize that everyone's time is  
> precious and
> scarce. No one has the right to tell someone else how to spend their
> time. The flipside is that no one has the right to complain about how
> much time they've volunteered. And I can just see how much worse this
> would be with money at stake: "What? You're not going to choose my
> submission for the bounty? But I worked so hard on it!" and so on.

But I still do not understand why the sqF could not decide:
ok we want to help the release process and we will invest money on that.
But now I'm in the board anymore and I will let you discuss.

>      What the other board member actually said to Stef was that if the
> work was taking such a toll, he hoped for Stef's sake that he would  
> take
> a break from it.

this was not the exact form of the remarks.

> I think he said this more out of concern for Stef's
> health than to reiterate a point about volunteerism.

Sorry I do not understand your english.

You are so kind and I'm so nasty.

Stef

>
> I agreed that a bounty system involves a risk that it may be wise  
> to take.

I forgot   Not -> it may be not wise to take.

> Split and Conquer is good ?
> What people have n list on each ignoring the others is good  ?
>  

As a beginer (and a non informatician), I can say that I **really**
appreciate this (new) list...

Speaking endlessly for it seemed to me incredible !

One of the problem of the squeak community is that members are a bit
elitists (which is the natural counterpart of having a great system like
squeak ) !

The beginner list helps to give access to to people who don't know
smalltalk or to people who don't know  **programing**

I still follow squeak-dev and it is really interesting to learn too but
the traffic in quite important and it takes time to follow it ...

Happily, I can !

my 2 cents

Cédrick

Craig Latta a écrit :

>      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.

Hilaire

On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 04:27:16PM +0200, Hilaire Fernandes 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

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

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.

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