More Candidate Questions
Locked
12
12
 
|
At <http://www.squeak.org/Foundation/> it says the Squeak Oversight Board is "building a legal presence".
Another apparently official SOB site site <http://squeakboard.wordpress.com/our-mission/> mentions as one of the goals of the SOB is "a solid legal foundation" I would like to ask the candidates: Do you intend to continue with these previous commitments? If so, what do you intend to put in place in order to build a legal presence? If not, do you intend to change the SOB www presence goals as stated? Ken G. Brown At 9:23 PM -0800 3/4/10, Andreas Raab apparently wrote: >Thanks Göran. > >Since this is the campaigning period I'd like to invite people to ask questions. Most of the candidates have made statements about their interests and directions, so I feel the floor should be open for the community to ask questions. > >If there's anything you would like to know from the candidates before you cast your vote, now's a pretty good time to get some answers :-) > >Cheers, > - Andreas |
Re: More Candidate Questions
|
|
>>>>> "Ken" == Ken G Brown <[hidden email]> writes:
Ken> Do you intend to continue with these previous commitments? Yes. Ken> If so, what do you intend to put in place in order to build a legal Ken> presence? Ensuring that Squeak becomes a project under the Software Freedom Conservancy within the next few weeks. Really, just curious... you know our plans... what sort of answers did you expect that aren't already repeatedly fully disclosed? -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <[hidden email]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ken G. Brown
At 5:37 PM -0800 3/8/10, Randal L. Schwartz apparently wrote:
> >>>>> "Ken" == Ken G Brown <[hidden email]> writes: > >Ken> Do you intend to continue with these previous commitments? > >Yes. > >Ken> If so, what do you intend to put in place in order to build a legal >Ken> presence? > >Ensuring that Squeak becomes a project under the Software Freedom Conservancy >within the next few weeks. > > >Really, just curious... you know our plans... what sort of answers did you >expect that aren't already repeatedly fully disclosed? I am interested in what the new Candidates say, or don't say, and not what the previous board or board members or vocal minorities say. Thank you for your responses. You are so far one of the 3 out of 11 Candidates who have responded. Ken G. Brown >-- >Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 ><[hidden email]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> >Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. >See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion |
|
|
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 07:09:02PM -0700, Ken G. Brown wrote:
> At 5:37 PM -0800 3/8/10, Randal L. Schwartz apparently wrote: > > >>>>> "Ken" == Ken G Brown <[hidden email]> writes: > > > >Ken> Do you intend to continue with these previous commitments? > > > >Yes. > > > >Ken> If so, what do you intend to put in place in order to build a legal > >Ken> presence? > > > >Ensuring that Squeak becomes a project under the Software Freedom Conservancy > >within the next few weeks. > > > >Really, just curious... you know our plans... what sort of answers did you > >expect that aren't already repeatedly fully disclosed? > > I am interested in what the new Candidates say, or don't say, and not > what the previous board or board members or vocal minorities say. One would hope that any new candidates who wanted to champion some new or different direction would have at least mentioned their intentions in that regard. I did not notice any of the candidates doing so. No doubt you may safely draw the obvious conclusion. Dave |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ken G. Brown
Ken,
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Ken G. Brown <[hidden email]> wrote: > Do you intend to continue with these previous commitments? yup. > If so, what do you intend to put in place in order to build a legal presence? I'm not a legal expert, but I'm with Randal here: get the SFC umbrella. Read: "me too". Sometimes it's inevitable. :-) Best, Michael |
Re: More Candidate Questions
|
|
In reply to this post by Ken G. Brown
On 09.03.2010, at 03:09, Ken G. Brown wrote:
> > At 5:37 PM -0800 3/8/10, Randal L. Schwartz apparently wrote: >>>>>>> "Ken" == Ken G Brown <[hidden email]> writes: >> >> Ken> Do you intend to continue with these previous commitments? >> >> Yes. >> >> Ken> If so, what do you intend to put in place in order to build a legal >> Ken> presence? >> >> Ensuring that Squeak becomes a project under the Software Freedom Conservancy >> within the next few weeks. >> >> >> Really, just curious... you know our plans... what sort of answers did you >> expect that aren't already repeatedly fully disclosed? > > I am interested in what the new Candidates say, or don't say, and not what the previous board or board members or vocal minorities say. > > Thank you for your responses. > You are so far one of the 3 out of 11 Candidates who have responded. > > Ken G. Brown You really want a "me too" response? Most here will know this but since we fortunately attracted new community members I'll try to summarize: Getting a legal presence established has been a community goal for years. It's where the term "Squeak Foundation" comes from - the original idea was to create a non-profit organization. Turned out none of us engineer-types could make it happen, so a while ago we decided to outsource that part. The Software Freedom Conservancy is an organization precisely for that, it provides a legal home for many projects, better and lesser known: http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/members/ The prerequisite for joining the SFC is to run a Free Software project. That's one of the major driving forces of getting a license-clean release. We're now literally days away from that release, and becoming a proper SFC member. The SOB worked with the SFC lawyers for far more than a year, but now the contract is ready to be signed. I don't really see why anyone would be opposed to that. Nobody, board member or not, spoke out previously against it. So I'd fully expect all candidates to support this, and I don't see the point of your question. But here's my short answer: Me too. ;) - Bert - |
|
|
On 3/9/10 8:40 AM, "Bert Freudenberg" <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> Ken> Do you intend to continue with these previous commitments? >>> >>> Yes. >>> >>> Ken> If so, what do you intend to put in place in order to build a legal >>> Ken> presence? >>> >>> Ensuring that Squeak becomes a project under the Software Freedom >>> Conservancy >>> within the next few weeks. >>> >>> >>> Really, just curious... you know our plans... what sort of answers did you >>> expect that aren't already repeatedly fully disclosed? >> >> I am interested in what the new Candidates say, or don't say, and not what >> the previous board or board members or vocal minorities say. >> >> Thank you for your responses. >> You are so far one of the 3 out of 11 Candidates who have responded. >> >> Ken G. Brown > > You really want a "me too" response? > > Most here will know this but since we fortunately attracted new community > members I'll try to summarize: > > Getting a legal presence established has been a community goal for years. It's > where the term "Squeak Foundation" comes from - the original idea was to > create a non-profit organization. Turned out none of us engineer-types could > make it happen, so a while ago we decided to outsource that part. The Software > Freedom Conservancy is an organization precisely for that, it provides a legal > home for many projects, better and lesser known: > > http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/members/ > > The prerequisite for joining the SFC is to run a Free Software project. That's > one of the major driving forces of getting a license-clean release. We're now > literally days away from that release, and becoming a proper SFC member. The > SOB worked with the SFC lawyers for far more than a year, but now the contract > is ready to be signed. > > I don't really see why anyone would be opposed to that. Nobody, board member > or not, spoke out previously against it. So I'd fully expect all candidates to > support this, and I don't see the point of your question. > > But here's my short answer: Me too. ;) > > - Bert - I am not a lawyer, need a good one ? Serious, this topic have members with experience , have my vote and the odds is they continue his good work. Edgar |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ken G. Brown
2010/3/8 Ken G. Brown <[hidden email]>:
> > > Thank you for your responses. > You are so far one of the 3 out of 11 Candidates who have responded. > > This is the bad symptom. As far as I remember were 3 question to candidates, with really few responses. As I've said before, I think that not responding candidates don't deserve votes. It's not only matter of know what *each* candidate think, it's also matter of show interest. Germán. |
|
|
Germán Arduino wrote:
> 2010/3/8 Ken G. Brown <[hidden email]>: >> >> Thank you for your responses. >> You are so far one of the 3 out of 11 Candidates who have responded. >> >> > > This is the bad symptom. As far as I remember were 3 question to > candidates, with > really few responses. > > As I've said before, I think that not responding candidates don't > deserve votes. It's not > only matter of know what *each* candidate think, it's also matter of > show interest. There's really no need to expect people like Randall to answer all manner of questions. I have a _very_ clear idea on Randall's stances on things, simply by lurking on the channel and reading Planet Squeak. Randall really does put it out there, communication-wise. (I use Randall as an example: some of the other candidates are almost as frequent in their position statements :). ) frank |
|
|
2010/3/9 Frank Shearar <[hidden email]>:
> Germán Arduino wrote: >> >> 2010/3/8 Ken G. Brown <[hidden email]>: >>> >>> Thank you for your responses. >>> You are so far one of the 3 out of 11 Candidates who have responded. >>> >>> >> >> This is the bad symptom. As far as I remember were 3 question to >> candidates, with >> really few responses. >> >> As I've said before, I think that not responding candidates don't >> deserve votes. It's not >> only matter of know what *each* candidate think, it's also matter of >> show interest. > > There's really no need to expect people like Randall to answer all manner of > questions. > > I have a _very_ clear idea on Randall's stances on things, simply by lurking > on the channel and reading Planet Squeak. Randall really does put it out > there, communication-wise. > > (I use Randall as an example: some of the other candidates are almost as > frequent in their position statements :). ) > > frank > > To continue with your example, the position of Randall is well know in tis particular topic, but not the position of other candidates (mostly the news). Also, other questions, would deserve an opinion of *all* the candidates, even the current Board members. Communication is very important and I don't like to vote by assumptions. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg
At 11:40 AM +0100 3/9/10, Bert Freudenberg apparently wrote:
>On 09.03.2010, at 03:09, Ken G. Brown wrote: >> >> At 5:37 PM -0800 3/8/10, Randal L. Schwartz apparently wrote: >>>>>>>> "Ken" == Ken G Brown <[hidden email]> writes: >>> >>> Ken> Do you intend to continue with these previous commitments? >>> >>> Yes. >>> >>> Ken> If so, what do you intend to put in place in order to build a legal >>> Ken> presence? >>> >>> Ensuring that Squeak becomes a project under the Software Freedom Conservancy >>> within the next few weeks. >>> >>> >>> Really, just curious... you know our plans... what sort of answers did you >>> expect that aren't already repeatedly fully disclosed? >> >> I am interested in what the new Candidates say, or don't say, and not what the previous board or board members or vocal minorities say. >> >> Thank you for your responses. >> You are so far one of the 3 out of 11 Candidates who have responded. >> >> Ken G. Brown > >You really want a "me too" response? > >Most here will know this but since we fortunately attracted new community members I'll try to summarize: > >Getting a legal presence established has been a community goal for years. It's where the term "Squeak Foundation" comes from - the original idea was to create a non-profit organization. Turned out none of us engineer-types could make it happen, so a while ago we decided to outsource that part. The Software Freedom Conservancy is an organization precisely for that, it provides a legal home for many projects, better and lesser known: > > http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/members/ > >The prerequisite for joining the SFC is to run a Free Software project. That's one of the major driving forces of getting a license-clean release. We're now literally days away from that release, and becoming a proper SFC member. The SOB worked with the SFC lawyers for far more than a year, but now the contract is ready to be signed. > >I don't really see why anyone would be opposed to that. Nobody, board member or not, spoke out previously against it. So I'd fully expect all candidates to support this, and I don't see the point of your question. > >But here's my short answer: Me too. ;) > >- Bert - It's not what I want as a response from you that counts, it's what you want to give the community as a response that matters, and thank you for yours. I think that before any contract is signed on behalf of the community, it might be good for the community to be able to have a look at it beforehand and maybe even discuss it a bit? Can you provide appropriate info or links? One thing I would like to see is the documentation that empowers the Squeak Oversight Board to sign such a contract on behalf of the community; 'Terms of Reference', 'Constitution' or whatever. How did these SOB powers become enshrined? What gives the board the right to sign contracts on behalf of the Squeak community? Is the SOB signing on behalf of Pharo/Cuis/Cobalt/etc. as well? Thx, Ken G. Brown |
Re: More Candidate Questions
|
|
On 09.03.2010, at 16:41, Ken G. Brown wrote:
> > At 11:40 AM +0100 3/9/10, Bert Freudenberg apparently wrote: >> On 09.03.2010, at 03:09, Ken G. Brown wrote: >>> >>> At 5:37 PM -0800 3/8/10, Randal L. Schwartz apparently wrote: >>>>>>>>> "Ken" == Ken G Brown <[hidden email]> writes: >>>> >>>> Ken> Do you intend to continue with these previous commitments? >>>> >>>> Yes. >>>> >>>> Ken> If so, what do you intend to put in place in order to build a legal >>>> Ken> presence? >>>> >>>> Ensuring that Squeak becomes a project under the Software Freedom Conservancy >>>> within the next few weeks. >>>> >>>> >>>> Really, just curious... you know our plans... what sort of answers did you >>>> expect that aren't already repeatedly fully disclosed? >>> >>> I am interested in what the new Candidates say, or don't say, and not what the previous board or board members or vocal minorities say. >>> >>> Thank you for your responses. >>> You are so far one of the 3 out of 11 Candidates who have responded. >>> >>> Ken G. Brown >> >> You really want a "me too" response? >> >> Most here will know this but since we fortunately attracted new community members I'll try to summarize: >> >> Getting a legal presence established has been a community goal for years. It's where the term "Squeak Foundation" comes from - the original idea was to create a non-profit organization. Turned out none of us engineer-types could make it happen, so a while ago we decided to outsource that part. The Software Freedom Conservancy is an organization precisely for that, it provides a legal home for many projects, better and lesser known: >> >> http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/members/ >> >> The prerequisite for joining the SFC is to run a Free Software project. That's one of the major driving forces of getting a license-clean release. We're now literally days away from that release, and becoming a proper SFC member. The SOB worked with the SFC lawyers for far more than a year, but now the contract is ready to be signed. >> >> I don't really see why anyone would be opposed to that. Nobody, board member or not, spoke out previously against it. So I'd fully expect all candidates to support this, and I don't see the point of your question. >> >> But here's my short answer: Me too. ;) >> >> - Bert - > > It's not what I want as a response from you that counts, it's what you want to give the community as a response that matters, and thank you for yours. > > I think that before any contract is signed on behalf of the community, it might be good for the community to be able to have a look at it beforehand and maybe even discuss it a bit? Can you provide appropriate info or links? > > One thing I would like to see is the documentation that empowers the Squeak Oversight Board to sign such a contract on behalf of the community; 'Terms of Reference', 'Constitution' or whatever. How did these SOB powers become enshrined? What gives the board the right to sign contracts on behalf of the Squeak community? Is the SOB signing on behalf of Pharo/Cuis/Cobalt/etc. as well? > > Thx, > Ken G. Brown We were elected, that's where our powers come from. Elected by the Squeak community, that is everyone who considers themselves to be part of it. In fact I still don't get your point. Serving on the board is much more of a duty than a fun affair. You make it sound like someone grabbed power from the rightful owners, when in fact the community is glad someone stepped up to take care of e.g. legal and financial issues. Thankfully every year we find a couple of people willing to serve on the Board too, when the only reward they can expect is knowing they are doing their share to keep Squeak alive. I still have not figured out what you consider to be your share. I mean, what *you* are doing, instead of expecting others to do. - Bert - |
|
|
At 5:06 PM +0100 3/9/10, Bert Freudenberg apparently wrote:
>On 09.03.2010, at 16:41, Ken G. Brown wrote: >> >> At 11:40 AM +0100 3/9/10, Bert Freudenberg apparently wrote: >>> On 09.03.2010, at 03:09, Ken G. Brown wrote: >>>> >>>> At 5:37 PM -0800 3/8/10, Randal L. Schwartz apparently wrote: >>>>>>>>>> "Ken" == Ken G Brown <[hidden email]> writes: >>>>> >>>>> Ken> Do you intend to continue with these previous commitments? >>>>> >>>>> Yes. >>>>> >>>>> Ken> If so, what do you intend to put in place in order to build a legal >>>>> Ken> presence? >>>>> >>>>> Ensuring that Squeak becomes a project under the Software Freedom Conservancy >>>>> within the next few weeks. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Really, just curious... you know our plans... what sort of answers did you >>>>> expect that aren't already repeatedly fully disclosed? >>>> >>>> I am interested in what the new Candidates say, or don't say, and not what the previous board or board members or vocal minorities say. >>>> >>>> Thank you for your responses. >>>> You are so far one of the 3 out of 11 Candidates who have responded. >>>> >>>> Ken G. Brown >>> >>> You really want a "me too" response? >>> >>> Most here will know this but since we fortunately attracted new community members I'll try to summarize: >>> >>> Getting a legal presence established has been a community goal for years. It's where the term "Squeak Foundation" comes from - the original idea was to create a non-profit organization. Turned out none of us engineer-types could make it happen, so a while ago we decided to outsource that part. The Software Freedom Conservancy is an organization precisely for that, it provides a legal home for many projects, better and lesser known: >>> >>> http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/members/ >>> >>> The prerequisite for joining the SFC is to run a Free Software project. That's one of the major driving forces of getting a license-clean release. We're now literally days away from that release, and becoming a proper SFC member. The SOB worked with the SFC lawyers for far more than a year, but now the contract is ready to be signed. >>> >>> I don't really see why anyone would be opposed to that. Nobody, board member or not, spoke out previously against it. So I'd fully expect all candidates to support this, and I don't see the point of your question. >>> >>> But here's my short answer: Me too. ;) >>> >>> - Bert - >> >> It's not what I want as a response from you that counts, it's what you want to give the community as a response that matters, and thank you for yours. >> >> I think that before any contract is signed on behalf of the community, it might be good for the community to be able to have a look at it beforehand and maybe even discuss it a bit? Can you provide appropriate info or links? >> >> One thing I would like to see is the documentation that empowers the Squeak Oversight Board to sign such a contract on behalf of the community; 'Terms of Reference', 'Constitution' or whatever. How did these SOB powers become enshrined? What gives the board the right to sign contracts on behalf of the Squeak community? Is the SOB signing on behalf of Pharo/Cuis/Cobalt/etc. as well? >> >> Thx, >> Ken G. Brown > >We were elected, that's where our powers come from. Elected by the Squeak community, that is everyone who considers themselves to be part of it. > >In fact I still don't get your point. Serving on the board is much more of a duty than a fun affair. You make it sound like someone grabbed power from the rightful owners, when in fact the community is glad someone stepped up to take care of e.g. legal and financial issues. > >Thankfully every year we find a couple of people willing to serve on the Board too, when the only reward they can expect is knowing they are doing their share to keep Squeak alive. I still have not figured out what you consider to be your share. I mean, what *you* are doing, instead of expecting others to do. > >- Bert - This isn't about what *I* am doing or not doing, it is about what you all as Candidates intend to do. And I thank everyone that has previously served and chooses to try to serve again on the SOB. Ken G. brown |
|
|
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg
On 9 March 2010 17:41, Ken G. Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:
> At 11:40 AM +0100 3/9/10, Bert Freudenberg apparently wrote: >>On 09.03.2010, at 03:09, Ken G. Brown wrote: >>> >>> At 5:37 PM -0800 3/8/10, Randal L. Schwartz apparently wrote: >>>>>>>>> "Ken" == Ken G Brown <[hidden email]> writes: >>>> >>>> Ken> Do you intend to continue with these previous commitments? >>>> >>>> Yes. >>>> >>>> Ken> If so, what do you intend to put in place in order to build a legal >>>> Ken> presence? >>>> >>>> Ensuring that Squeak becomes a project under the Software Freedom Conservancy >>>> within the next few weeks. >>>> >>>> >>>> Really, just curious... you know our plans... what sort of answers did you >>>> expect that aren't already repeatedly fully disclosed? >>> >>> I am interested in what the new Candidates say, or don't say, and not what the previous board or board members or vocal minorities say. >>> >>> Thank you for your responses. >>> You are so far one of the 3 out of 11 Candidates who have responded. >>> >>> Ken G. Brown >> >>You really want a "me too" response? >> >>Most here will know this but since we fortunately attracted new community members I'll try to summarize: >> >>Getting a legal presence established has been a community goal for years. It's where the term "Squeak Foundation" comes from - the original idea was to create a non-profit organization. Turned out none of us engineer-types could make it happen, so a while ago we decided to outsource that part. The Software Freedom Conservancy is an organization precisely for that, it provides a legal home for many projects, better and lesser known: >> >> http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/members/ >> >>The prerequisite for joining the SFC is to run a Free Software project. That's one of the major driving forces of getting a license-clean release. We're now literally days away from that release, and becoming a proper SFC member. The SOB worked with the SFC lawyers for far more than a year, but now the contract is ready to be signed. >> >>I don't really see why anyone would be opposed to that. Nobody, board member or not, spoke out previously against it. So I'd fully expect all candidates to support this, and I don't see the point of your question. >> >>But here's my short answer: Me too. ;) >> >>- Bert - > > It's not what I want as a response from you that counts, it's what you want to give the community as a response that matters, and thank you for yours. > > I think that before any contract is signed on behalf of the community, it might be good for the community to be able to have a look at it beforehand and maybe even discuss it a bit? Can you provide appropriate info or links? > > One thing I would like to see is the documentation that empowers the Squeak Oversight Board to sign such a contract on behalf of the community; 'Terms of Reference', 'Constitution' or whatever. How did these SOB powers become enshrined? What gives the board the right to sign contracts on behalf of the Squeak community? Is the SOB signing on behalf of Pharo/Cuis/Cobalt/etc. as well? > Ken, i am not much fan of joining SCF, if you ask me. But if you vote against joining it , you have to give people an alternative: - who will legally handle a tax-free donations to Squeak - who will represent us in court, to protect our intellectual property and many other things which i prefer to never hear about in my life. But the problem is, that these things exists, no matter if i want it or not :) So, if you (or board candidate) know any better alternative, which will cover these legal issues, feel free to present them. > Thx, > Ken G. Brown > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ken G. Brown
On 3/9/2010 7:41 AM, Ken G. Brown wrote:
> I think that before any contract is signed on behalf of the community, it might be good for the community to be able to have a look at it beforehand and maybe even discuss it a bit? Can you provide appropriate info or links? Yes, we should make the agreement accessible. > One thing I would like to see is the documentation that empowers the Squeak Oversight Board to sign such a contract on behalf of the community; 'Terms of Reference', 'Constitution' or whatever. How did these SOB powers become enshrined? What gives the board the right to sign contracts on behalf of the Squeak community? Being elected by the Squeak community. > Is the SOB signing on behalf of Pharo/Cuis/Cobalt/etc. as well? No, of course not. We cannot claim to act as representatives of these communities, consequently we do not act on their behalf. Cheers, - Andreas |
|
|
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg
On 2010-03-09, at 2:40 AM, Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> wrote: > On 09.03.2010, at 03:09, Ken G. Brown wrote: >> >> Thank you for your responses. >> You are so far one of the 3 out of 11 Candidates who have responded. >> >> Ken G. Brown > > You really want a "me too" response? Ken's playing politics. The point of the question wasn't to solicit information, but to get you to go on record. Then, if for some reason the SFC project doesn't pan out, he can point to this statement as evidence that you haven't kept your word. Colin |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ken G. Brown
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 08:41:12 -0700 Ken G. Brown" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> At 11:40 AM +0100 3/9/10, Bert Freudenberg apparently wrote: >>On 09.03.2010, at 03:09, Ken G. Brown wrote: >>> >>> At 5:37 PM -0800 3/8/10, Randal L. Schwartz apparently wrote: >>>>>>>>> "Ken" == Ken G Brown <[hidden email]> writes: >>>> >>>> Ken> Do you intend to continue with these previous commitments? >>>> >>>> Yes. >>>> >>>> Ken> If so, what do you intend to put in place in order to build a legal >>>> Ken> presence? >>>> >>>> Ensuring that Squeak becomes a project under the Software Freedom > Conservancy >>>> within the next few weeks. >>>> >>>> >>>> Really, just curious... you know our plans... what sort of answers did you >>>> expect that aren't already repeatedly fully disclosed? >>> >>> I am interested in what the new Candidates say, or don't say, and not > what the previous > board or board members or vocal minorities say. >>> >>> Thank you for your responses. >>> You are so far one of the 3 out of 11 Candidates who have responded. >>> >>> Ken G. Brown >> >>You really want a "me too" response? >> >>Most here will know this but since we fortunately attracted new community > members I'll > try to summarize: >> >>Getting a legal presence established has been a community goal for years. > It's where the > term "Squeak Foundation" comes from - the original idea was to create a > non-profit > organization. Turned out none of us engineer-types could make it happen, so > a while ago we > decided to outsource that part. The Software Freedom Conservancy is an > organization precisely > for that, it provides a legal home for many projects, better and lesser known: >> >> http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/members/ >> >>The prerequisite for joining the SFC is to run a Free Software project. > That's one of the > major driving forces of getting a license-clean release. We're now > literally days away from > that release, and becoming a proper SFC member. The SOB worked with the SFC > lawyers for far > more than a year, but now the contract is ready to be signed. >> >>I don't really see why anyone would be opposed to that. Nobody, board > member or not, > spoke out previously against it. So I'd fully expect all candidates to > support this, and I > don't see the point of your question. >> >>But here's my short answer: Me too. ;) >> >>- Bert - > > It's not what I want as a response from you that counts, it's what you want > to give the > community as a response that matters, and thank you for yours. It is the nature of communal government that no individual controls what is good for the community. There is no shortage of politicians who feel otherwise. > > I think that before any contract is signed on behalf of the community, it > might be good > for the community to be able to have a look at it beforehand and maybe even > discuss it a > bit? Can you provide appropriate info or links? > > One thing I would like to see is the documentation that empowers the Squeak > Oversight > Board to sign such a contract on behalf of the community; 'Terms of > Reference', > 'Constitution' or whatever. How did these SOB powers become enshrined? What > gives the > board the right to sign contracts on behalf of the Squeak community? Is the > SOB signing on > behalf of Pharo/Cuis/Cobalt/etc. as well? The usual practice is for the board to elect a president, or to have the community elect the officers the same time they elect the board. The president would sign, on behalf of the board. The board is empowered by elections held by a self-organizing group of people. There is no higher authority. Cobalt and the others are distinct communities. The relicensing effort will affect them to the extent they rely on the Squeak code base. From what I have seen this is all good. The decision to join the SFC can be reversed in the future should Squeak grow large enough to want to bring those functions in-house. -- Gary Dunn, Honolulu [hidden email] http://openslate.net/ http://e9erust.blogspot.com/ Sent from a Newton 2100 via Mail V |
|
|
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 11:38 -1000, Gary Dunn wrote:
> The usual practice is for the board to elect a president, or to have > the community elect the officers the same time they elect the board. > The president would sign, on behalf of the board. This is not OUR usual practice. The Squeak Oversight Board is a flat board with no designated officers, no leaders. Yes in practice usually one of us is more pushy than the others and has a tendency to take charge. And we do sign up for tasks and even have a few jobs that we take on for the entire year. But when a decision has to actually be made we discuss it equally and come up with a solution that we can all agree to unanimously. Ken |
signature.asc (197 bytes)
Re: More Candidate Questions
|
|
In reply to this post by Ken G. Brown
I would like to thank Ken for trying to start a discussion here. In the
previous election, I ended up searching the archives of squeak-dev to try to get a sense of what some of the candidates were about and found that some had never posted more than a "me too" just once! About the SFC, my opinion is the same as Igor's. It is not ideal but we really have no choice if none of us is going to do all the legal work. In my opinion, the board has one single authority: the community as a whole owns the "Squeak" brand and elects this group of people to take care of it. Anything else is derived from that. Handling money, technical decisions or whatever else. And signing a contract with the SFC. About commercial use, I am fully in favor. Part of that is supporting users. Our largest group of users right now is the hundreds of thousands of students and teachers using Etoys. If we were a company, you would say that the Squeakland foundation is our largest customer. Of course, if we were a company we would be charging to support them. But to me, it isn't ethical for us to just drop them because were have been doing it for free and our resources are limited. Some might claim that it isn't our fault that somebody else "sold" them Etoys, but in my commercial efforts I sometimes have to honor other people's promises at my own expense. Given that Pharo now exists, I think we can afford to move more slowly. It is not that I don't want to go where Pharo is going, quite the opposite. But if they are doing such a good job of supporting one group of customers (developers like ourselves) then we can focus on another group until we have more resources. I would like Squeak 4.1 (or 4.2, as the case may be) to be a small kernel into which you can load stuff like Etoys and/or Croquet, web development and email client and so on. All the Squeakland folks would have to do would be to ship our image preloaded with Etoys 5, Connectors and DrGeo. -- Jecel |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ken G. Brown
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 06:31:26PM -0700, Ken G. Brown wrote:
> At <http://www.squeak.org/Foundation/> it says the Squeak Oversight Board is "building a legal presence". > > Another apparently official SOB site site <http://squeakboard.wordpress.com/our-mission/> > mentions as one of the goals of the SOB is "a solid legal foundation" > > I would like to ask the candidates: > Do you intend to continue with these previous commitments? > If so, what do you intend to put in place in order to build a legal presence? > If not, do you intend to change the SOB www presence goals as stated? I put in my fair share of work a year ago to make this happen, and am thrilled we can finally put this relicensing project behind us. I have worked a little bit with the SFC and see no reason not to proceed as planned -- Matthew Fulmer (a.k.a. Tapple) |
«
Return to Squeak - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |