Squeak Foundation Board 2007 Candidates

> From: Craig Latta
> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 12:51 PM
>
>
> Hi Ron--
>
> > We have a short time to find out more about these candidates before
> > the election. I will be sending the same questions to each candidate
> > and will publish a final article...
>
>      You posed a set of candidate questions earlier which were quite
> loaded; in particular, they conveyed a certain point of view of yours,
> and effectively asked whether or not the candidate agrees with you. :)
> This didn't seem so good. Much better (but potentially a lot of work),
> would be to compile a set of top-asked questions from the community, a
> la Slashdot. I don't think it's right for one person to claim authority
> for deciding what questions to ask. Certainly the questions could be
> better.
>
> > In the mean time I encourage people to support your favorite
> > candidate! Please post a recommendation for your favorite candidate,
> > include details about that candidate that people may not know.
>
>      Hm, I'm not sure this is such a great idea either. :)  As a voter,
> I'm most interested in what each candidate is motivated to say on their
> own behalf. And the candidates should probably decide what new facts
> about themselves to present. It seems most fair to let the candidates
> speak for themselves.
>
> > It is sometimes difficult for people to talk about themselves so I
> > encourage you to help.
>
>      I think that's a good point; I think a better way to go about it
> would be for interested voters to contact their favorite candidates
> directly and suggest strengths for them to emphasize when addressing all
> of us.
>
>      Another thought about the "None of the Above" candidate. If NA
> doesn't displace anyone from winning (i.e., for this election, seven
> people beat "NA"), then there doesn't seem to be any reason to reveal
> NA's ranking; all it may do is hurt the feelings of anyone ranked lower.
>
>      Finally, it seems most fair to list candidates in alphabetical order.
>
>
>      thanks again!
>
> -C
>
> --
> Craig Latta
> http://netjam.org/resume
>
>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tim Rowledge [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 1:58 PM
> To: [hidden email]; The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> Subject: Re: election details *PLEASE READ*
>
>
> On 19-Feb-07, at 10:32 AM, Ron Teitelbaum wrote:
>
> >
> > Craig suggests that we do not post an article that has candidates
> > answer my
> > questions because my questions are loaded.
>
> I pretty much agree with Craig here; no bad intent is needed by
> anyone in the process and yet it can very easily become a nasty
> argument.  It seems to be the nature of email/group communications.
> Survey questions (and what Ron was suggesting is essentially a
> survey) are very difficult to write in such a way as to *elicit
> opinions* rather than *agreement with implied opinion in the question*.
>
> 1) Have you stopped beating your spouse yet?
> 2) Do you agree that we must always fight against stopping <foo>
> being prevented, if indeed it not happening caused nothing to not be
> undoably redone?
> 3) Why? Explain in 750 words, double spaced on unlined paper. In
> green crayon.
>
>
> tim
> --
> tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
> Klingon Code Warrior:- 7) "You question the worthiness of my Code?! I
> should kill you where you stand!"
>
>

> Hi Ron--
>
>> We have a short time to find out more about these candidates before
>> the election. I will be sending the same questions to each candidate
>> and will publish a final article...
>
>      You posed a set of candidate questions earlier which were quite
> loaded; in particular, they conveyed a certain point of view of yours,
> and effectively asked whether or not the candidate agrees with you. :)
> This didn't seem so good. Much better (but potentially a lot of work),
> would be to compile a set of top-asked questions from the community, a
> la Slashdot. I don't think it's right for one person to claim authority
> for deciding what questions to ask. Certainly the questions could be better.

> Craig Latta wrote:
>> Hi Ron--
>>
>>> We have a short time to find out more about these candidates before
>>> the election. I will be sending the same questions to each candidate
>>> and will publish a final article...
>>
>>      You posed a set of candidate questions earlier which were quite
>> loaded; in particular, they conveyed a certain point of view of yours,
>> and effectively asked whether or not the candidate agrees with you. :)
>> This didn't seem so good. Much better (but potentially a lot of work),
>> would be to compile a set of top-asked questions from the community, a
>> la Slashdot. I don't think it's right for one person to claim authority
>> for deciding what questions to ask. Certainly the questions could be
>> better.
>
> I don't recall the questions. But your suggestions are good.
>
>>> In the mean time I encourage people to support your favorite
>>> candidate! Please post a recommendation for your favorite candidate,
>>> include details about that candidate that people may not know.
>>
>>      Hm, I'm not sure this is such a great idea either. :)  As a voter,
>> I'm most interested in what each candidate is motivated to say on their
>> own behalf. And the candidates should probably decide what new facts
>> about themselves to present. It seems most fair to let the candidates
>> speak for themselves.
>
> And, it could get ugly. There has been some finger pointing in the
> past. Most messages, though, show respect for others.
>
> Better safe than sorry and maybe collect a list of questions, shuffle
> them in random list order, and let each candidate answer, if they so
> choose to.
>
>
>

> Hi everyone.
>
> I think the discussion phase between finding candidates and voting
> should allow both voters and candidates to form some expectations about
> what is going to happen in the next term. In this light, I think Ron,
> like me, wants only to help this process along, but a list of questions
> may constrict, rather than help.
>
> And in this particular phase of the election, I think our place should
> only to help. So I propose that we step back and let the mailing list do
> its job. I will propose that the election team will create a wiki page
> documenting the election, including having a list of candidates. If each
> candidate sends us an appropriate link, voters will have some handy
> reference material at the time of the vote.
>
> Sound good?
>
> Daniel
>
> Brad Fuller wrote:
> > Craig Latta wrote:
> >> Hi Ron--
> >>
> >>> We have a short time to find out more about these candidates before
> >>> the election. I will be sending the same questions to each candidate
> >>> and will publish a final article...
> >>
> >>      You posed a set of candidate questions earlier which were quite
> >> loaded; in particular, they conveyed a certain point of view of yours,
> >> and effectively asked whether or not the candidate agrees with you. :)
> >> This didn't seem so good. Much better (but potentially a lot of work),
> >> would be to compile a set of top-asked questions from the community, a
> >> la Slashdot. I don't think it's right for one person to claim authority
> >> for deciding what questions to ask. Certainly the questions could be
> >> better.
> >
> > I don't recall the questions. But your suggestions are good.
> >
> >>> In the mean time I encourage people to support your favorite
> >>> candidate! Please post a recommendation for your favorite candidate,
> >>> include details about that candidate that people may not know.
> >>
> >>      Hm, I'm not sure this is such a great idea either. :)  As a voter,
> >> I'm most interested in what each candidate is motivated to say on their
> >> own behalf. And the candidates should probably decide what new facts
> >> about themselves to present. It seems most fair to let the candidates
> >> speak for themselves.
> >
> > And, it could get ugly. There has been some finger pointing in the
> > past. Most messages, though, show respect for others.
> >
> > Better safe than sorry and maybe collect a list of questions, shuffle
> > them in random list order, and let each candidate answer, if they so
> > choose to.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

> I wonder, if Ron not send the mail with the proposal of questions and
> support mail of the rest of Squeakers, what happened? May be
> nothing...
>
> And we, the voters, need some way to know the plans, goals, details,
> etc of the candidates to vote with responsability. Myself at leas,t
> take the voting opportunity each year very seriously and try my best
> as voter. But I need information. And this is that Ron is trying to
> give us.
>
> Don't know the better way, but the candidates must explain (please in
> a wiki or so but OUTSIDE the list) all they consider must comment.
>
> Cheers.
>
> 2007/2/19, Daniel Vainsencher <[hidden email]>:
>> Hi everyone.
>>
>> I think the discussion phase between finding candidates and voting
>> should allow both voters and candidates to form some expectations about
>> what is going to happen in the next term. In this light, I think Ron,
>> like me, wants only to help this process along, but a list of questions
>> may constrict, rather than help.
>>
>> And in this particular phase of the election, I think our place should
>> only to help. So I propose that we step back and let the mailing list do
>> its job. I will propose that the election team will create a wiki page
>> documenting the election, including having a list of candidates. If each
>> candidate sends us an appropriate link, voters will have some handy
>> reference material at the time of the vote.
>>
>> Sound good?
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>> Brad Fuller wrote:
>> > Craig Latta wrote:
>> >> Hi Ron--
>> >>
>> >>> We have a short time to find out more about these candidates before
>> >>> the election. I will be sending the same questions to each candidate
>> >>> and will publish a final article...
>> >>
>> >>      You posed a set of candidate questions earlier which were quite
>> >> loaded; in particular, they conveyed a certain point of view of
>> yours,
>> >> and effectively asked whether or not the candidate agrees with
>> you. :)
>> >> This didn't seem so good. Much better (but potentially a lot of
>> work),
>> >> would be to compile a set of top-asked questions from the
>> community, a
>> >> la Slashdot. I don't think it's right for one person to claim
>> authority
>> >> for deciding what questions to ask. Certainly the questions could be
>> >> better.
>> >
>> > I don't recall the questions. But your suggestions are good.
>> >
>> >>> In the mean time I encourage people to support your favorite
>> >>> candidate! Please post a recommendation for your favorite candidate,
>> >>> include details about that candidate that people may not know.
>> >>
>> >>      Hm, I'm not sure this is such a great idea either. :)  As a
>> voter,
>> >> I'm most interested in what each candidate is motivated to say on
>> their
>> >> own behalf. And the candidates should probably decide what new facts
>> >> about themselves to present. It seems most fair to let the candidates
>> >> speak for themselves.
>> >
>> > And, it could get ugly. There has been some finger pointing in the
>> > past. Most messages, though, show respect for others.
>> >
>> > Better safe than sorry and maybe collect a list of questions, shuffle
>> > them in random list order, and let each candidate answer, if they so
>> > choose to.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>

> I wonder, if Ron not send the mail with the proposal of questions and
> support mail of the rest of Squeakers, what happened? May be
> nothing...
>
> And we, the voters, need some way to know the plans, goals, details,
> etc of the candidates to vote with responsability. Myself at leas,t
> take the voting opportunity each year very seriously and try my best
> as voter. But I need information. And this is that Ron is trying to
> give us.
>
> Don't know the better way, but the candidates must explain (please in
> a wiki or so but OUTSIDE the list) all they consider must comment.
>
> Cheers.
>
> 2007/2/19, Daniel Vainsencher <[hidden email]>:
>> Hi everyone.
>>
>> I think the discussion phase between finding candidates and voting
>> should allow both voters and candidates to form some expectations  
>> about
>> what is going to happen in the next term. In this light, I think Ron,
>> like me, wants only to help this process along, but a list of  
>> questions
>> may constrict, rather than help.
>>
>> And in this particular phase of the election, I think our place  
>> should
>> only to help. So I propose that we step back and let the mailing  
>> list do
>> its job. I will propose that the election team will create a wiki  
>> page
>> documenting the election, including having a list of candidates.  
>> If each
>> candidate sends us an appropriate link, voters will have some handy
>> reference material at the time of the vote.
>>
>> Sound good?
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>> Brad Fuller wrote:
>> > Craig Latta wrote:
>> >> Hi Ron--
>> >>
>> >>> We have a short time to find out more about these candidates  
>> before
>> >>> the election. I will be sending the same questions to each  
>> candidate
>> >>> and will publish a final article...
>> >>
>> >>      You posed a set of candidate questions earlier which were  
>> quite
>> >> loaded; in particular, they conveyed a certain point of view of  
>> yours,
>> >> and effectively asked whether or not the candidate agrees with  
>> you. :)
>> >> This didn't seem so good. Much better (but potentially a lot of  
>> work),
>> >> would be to compile a set of top-asked questions from the  
>> community, a
>> >> la Slashdot. I don't think it's right for one person to claim  
>> authority
>> >> for deciding what questions to ask. Certainly the questions  
>> could be
>> >> better.
>> >
>> > I don't recall the questions. But your suggestions are good.
>> >
>> >>> In the mean time I encourage people to support your favorite
>> >>> candidate! Please post a recommendation for your favorite  
>> candidate,
>> >>> include details about that candidate that people may not know.
>> >>
>> >>      Hm, I'm not sure this is such a great idea either. :)  As  
>> a voter,
>> >> I'm most interested in what each candidate is motivated to say  
>> on their
>> >> own behalf. And the candidates should probably decide what new  
>> facts
>> >> about themselves to present. It seems most fair to let the  
>> candidates
>> >> speak for themselves.
>> >
>> > And, it could get ugly. There has been some finger pointing in the
>> > past. Most messages, though, show respect for others.
>> >
>> > Better safe than sorry and maybe collect a list of questions,  
>> shuffle
>> > them in random list order, and let each candidate answer, if  
>> they so
>> > choose to.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>

> I suggest to create a wiki page with
> - a section listing questions. Everybody can add questions or add his
> name to an existing question to show his interest
> - a section (or extra page) for each candidate in which he can
> present himself and, if he likes to, answer questions
>
> I think a central place for this information would be helpful because
> else its really hard to keep track of what candidates state. When we
> elect, nobody wants to search the mail archives to find out who a
> candidate is.
>
> Adrian
>
>

> Hi everyone.
>
> I think the discussion phase between finding candidates and voting  
> should allow both voters and candidates to form some expectations  
> about what is going to happen in the next term. In this light, I  
> think Ron, like me, wants only to help this process along, but a  
> list of questions may constrict, rather than help.
>
> And in this particular phase of the election, I think our place  
> should only to help. So I propose that we step back and let the  
> mailing list do its job. I will propose that the election team will  
> create a wiki page documenting the election, including having a  
> list of candidates. If each candidate sends us an appropriate link,  
> voters will have some handy reference material at the time of the  
> vote.
>
> Sound good?
>
> Daniel
>
> Brad Fuller wrote:
>> Craig Latta wrote:
>>> Hi Ron--
>>>
>>>> We have a short time to find out more about these candidates before
>>>> the election. I will be sending the same questions to each  
>>>> candidate
>>>> and will publish a final article...
>>>
>>>      You posed a set of candidate questions earlier which were quite
>>> loaded; in particular, they conveyed a certain point of view of  
>>> yours,
>>> and effectively asked whether or not the candidate agrees with  
>>> you. :)
>>> This didn't seem so good. Much better (but potentially a lot of  
>>> work),
>>> would be to compile a set of top-asked questions from the  
>>> community, a
>>> la Slashdot. I don't think it's right for one person to claim  
>>> authority
>>> for deciding what questions to ask. Certainly the questions could  
>>> be better.
>>
>> I don't recall the questions. But your suggestions are good.
>>
>>>> In the mean time I encourage people to support your favorite
>>>> candidate! Please post a recommendation for your favorite  
>>>> candidate,
>>>> include details about that candidate that people may not know.
>>>
>>>      Hm, I'm not sure this is such a great idea either. :)  As a  
>>> voter,
>>> I'm most interested in what each candidate is motivated to say on  
>>> their
>>> own behalf. And the candidates should probably decide what new facts
>>> about themselves to present. It seems most fair to let the  
>>> candidates
>>> speak for themselves.
>>
>> And, it could get ugly. There has been some finger pointing in the  
>> past. Most messages, though, show respect for others.
>>
>> Better safe than sorry and maybe collect a list of questions,  
>> shuffle them in random list order, and let each candidate answer,  
>> if they so choose to.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

>From: "Ron Teitelbaum" <[hidden email]>
>Reply-To: [hidden email], The general-purpose Squeak developers
>list<[hidden email]>
>To: "'tim Rowledge'" <[hidden email]>,"'The general-purpose Squeak
>developers list'"<[hidden email]>
>Subject: RE: election details *PLEASE READ*
>Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:08:01 -0500
>
>All,
>
>As a reminder these were the questions that I originally suggested.  I did
>receive other questions that I was planning on incorporating today.
>
>1) Do you support stepping up fundraising?  If so what do you propose to do
>with the money collected?
>
>2) Do you support bounty projects?  If so can you lay out how you would
>like
>to see a bounty program administered?
>
>3) Do you support incorporation and not for profit tax status for Squeak
>Foundation?
>
>4) What do you believe is the future of Smalltalk?
>
>5) What do you think the community is doing right, what should be improved?
>
>6) Should the Squeak be represented at more conferences?
>
>7) Should Tim be given a gazillon dollars for his excellent work on Squeak?
>
>They are not arbitrary questions or one sided Ron's agenda questions.  I
>thought they were pretty well sanitized and general.  Some of them are
>downright softballs!
>
>Ron
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: tim Rowledge [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 1:58 PM
> > To: [hidden email]; The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> > Subject: Re: election details *PLEASE READ*
> >
> >
> > On 19-Feb-07, at 10:32 AM, Ron Teitelbaum wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Craig suggests that we do not post an article that has candidates
> > > answer my
> > > questions because my questions are loaded.
> >
> > I pretty much agree with Craig here; no bad intent is needed by
> > anyone in the process and yet it can very easily become a nasty
> > argument.  It seems to be the nature of email/group communications.
> > Survey questions (and what Ron was suggesting is essentially a
> > survey) are very difficult to write in such a way as to *elicit
> > opinions* rather than *agreement with implied opinion in the question*.
> >
> > 1) Have you stopped beating your spouse yet?
> > 2) Do you agree that we must always fight against stopping <foo>
> > being prevented, if indeed it not happening caused nothing to not be
> > undoably redone?
> > 3) Why? Explain in 750 words, double spaced on unlined paper. In
> > green crayon.
> >
> >
> > tim
> > --
> > tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
> > Klingon Code Warrior:- 7) "You question the worthiness of my Code?! I
> > should kill you where you stand!"
> >
> >
>
>
>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:squeak-dev-
> [hidden email]] On Behalf Of J J
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 3:01 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: RE: election details *PLEASE READ*
>
> Well, it is a tough thing.  I would personally like to know about where
> the
> candidates stand on things I want to see happen and things I don't want to
> see happen.  But I don't know how to word my questions in an unloaded way.
> :)
>
> I would just want to know things like, how much change does the candidate
> want or would support?  Something drastic changes (and imo awful) like
> moving to a more file based, less image architecture, or a more
> conservative
> (but forward moving!) approach.
>
> >From: "Ron Teitelbaum" <[hidden email]>
> >Reply-To: [hidden email], The general-purpose Squeak developers
> >list<[hidden email]>
> >To: "'tim Rowledge'" <[hidden email]>,"'The general-purpose Squeak
> >developers list'"<[hidden email]>
> >Subject: RE: election details *PLEASE READ*
> >Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:08:01 -0500
> >
> >All,
> >
> >As a reminder these were the questions that I originally suggested.  I
> did
> >receive other questions that I was planning on incorporating today.
> >
> >1) Do you support stepping up fundraising?  If so what do you propose to
> do
> >with the money collected?
> >
> >2) Do you support bounty projects?  If so can you lay out how you would
> >like
> >to see a bounty program administered?
> >
> >3) Do you support incorporation and not for profit tax status for Squeak
> >Foundation?
> >
> >4) What do you believe is the future of Smalltalk?
> >
> >5) What do you think the community is doing right, what should be
> improved?
> >
> >6) Should the Squeak be represented at more conferences?
> >
> >7) Should Tim be given a gazillon dollars for his excellent work on
> Squeak?
> >
> >They are not arbitrary questions or one sided Ron's agenda questions.  I
> >thought they were pretty well sanitized and general.  Some of them are
> >downright softballs!
> >
> >Ron
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: tim Rowledge [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 1:58 PM
> > > To: [hidden email]; The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> > > Subject: Re: election details *PLEASE READ*
> > >
> > >
> > > On 19-Feb-07, at 10:32 AM, Ron Teitelbaum wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Craig suggests that we do not post an article that has candidates
> > > > answer my
> > > > questions because my questions are loaded.
> > >
> > > I pretty much agree with Craig here; no bad intent is needed by
> > > anyone in the process and yet it can very easily become a nasty
> > > argument.  It seems to be the nature of email/group communications.
> > > Survey questions (and what Ron was suggesting is essentially a
> > > survey) are very difficult to write in such a way as to *elicit
> > > opinions* rather than *agreement with implied opinion in the
> question*.
> > >
> > > 1) Have you stopped beating your spouse yet?
> > > 2) Do you agree that we must always fight against stopping <foo>
> > > being prevented, if indeed it not happening caused nothing to not be
> > > undoably redone?
> > > 3) Why? Explain in 750 words, double spaced on unlined paper. In
> > > green crayon.
> > >
> > >
> > > tim
> > > --
> > > tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
> > > Klingon Code Warrior:- 7) "You question the worthiness of my Code?! I
> > > should kill you where you stand!"
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Find what you need at prices you'll love. Compare products and save at
> MSNR
> Shopping.
> http://shopping.msn.com/default/shp/?ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=24102&tcode=T001MS
> N20A0701
>
>