Squeak Foundation Board 2007 Candidates

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
133 messages Options
1234 ... 7
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Squeak Foundation Board 2007 Candidates

Ron Teitelbaum
Hello everyone,

Our deadline for announcing your candidacy to the Squeak Foundation Board
has passed, which means we have a final list of 12 candidates.  They are:

Cees de Groot
Tim Rowledge
Bert Freudenberg
Craig Latta
Stéphane Ducasse
Giovanni Corriga
Keith Hodges
Andrew P. Black
Todd Blanchard
Yoshiki Ohshima
Tansel Ersavas
Brad Fuller

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 on http://weeklysqueak.wordpress.com .  I will post
a link here when the article is finished.  The answers will be published in
the order that I receive them back.  Which could mean you should start
reading at the bottom!

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.  It is sometimes difficult
for people to talk about themselves so I encourage you to help.  I say
support your favorite candidate and not a group of candidates for a reason.
Many people support all the candidates and feel that if they post something
about someone they need to post something about everyone.  So let's take
posts about someone as a positive thing and not a vote against others.  Help
us learn about the people running by sharing what you know about them.

If you support a foundation platform now is a good time for you to tell us
that.  Submit your ideas and let candidates comment about your platform
suggestions on-list.  The more we can make this an open discussion the
better.

Remember voting starts on March 3rd, 2007.

Thank you everyone for participating!

Ron Teitelbaum
Squeak Elections Team Member


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

re: election details (was "Squeak Foundation Board 2007 Candidates")

ccrraaiigg

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



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: election details *PLEASE READ*

Ron Teitelbaum
Hello all,

Craig suggests that we do not post an article that has candidates answer my
questions because my questions are loaded.  I did ask people to submit their
own questions, but if this is what the community wants the please say so
now.  I would still be interested in hearing other questions, including
having questions submitted by candidates!

Also Craig suggests that we do not post emails supporting candidates but let
candidates speak for themselves.  My goal in asking the community to do this
is to get a conversation started, which as you know, is actually pretty
difficult to do in this community.  There is not much time left before we
vote.

So it is very important that the community say if you want an article and if
you would like to have community members support their candidates with some
thoughts posted here.

Please respond and let us know what you would like me to do, if anything, to
help inform you the community and keep you informed as this election
proceeds.  

Thanks,

Ron Teitelbaum

p.s. I ordered the candidates in the order that they declared but I can
change that to alphabetical.

> 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
>
>



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: election details *PLEASE READ*

timrowledge

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!"



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: election details *PLEASE READ*

Ron Teitelbaum
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!"
>
>



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: election details (was "Squeak Foundation Board 2007 Candidates")

Brad Fuller-3
In reply to this post by ccrraaiigg
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.



--
brad fuller
www.bradfuller.com
+1 (408) 799-6124

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: election details (was "Squeak Foundation Board 2007 Candidates")

Daniel Vainsencher-3
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.
>
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: election details (was "Squeak Foundation Board 2007 Candidates")

garduino
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.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: election details (was "Squeak Foundation Board 2007 Candidates")

Laurence Rozier
In reply to this post by Daniel Vainsencher-3


On 2/19/07, Daniel Vainsencher <[hidden email]> wrote:
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?

Yes.  I would also encourage people(candidates and voters) to blog. With blogs people can feel free to express themselves and we can all choose to sample views we find valuable(whether we agree or not).  Email lists are a shared space that has to be managed lest it get out of control. However, I think we need more expression not less and blogs help distribute the management overhead. Express yourselves! 

Laurence

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.
>
>
>





Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Questions for candidates here (was: election details)

Daniel Vainsencher-3
In reply to this post by garduino
Hi German :-)

Ron and I have no monopoly on good questions...

Here's a simple game all voters can play. Take the list of candidates,
and try to sort it by your preference. You're are simply preparing now,
what you'll have to do to vote anyway. In each case where you're not
sure whether you prefer A or B, do as I suggested above: read up on
both, and ask some questions. Your can put them on a reply to this thread.

Daniel

Germán Arduino wrote:

> 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.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: election details (was "Squeak Foundation Board 2007 Candidates")

Adrian Lienhard
In reply to this post by garduino
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


On Feb 19, 2007, at 21:02 , Germán Arduino wrote:

> 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.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: election details (was "Squeak Foundation Board 2007 Candidates")

garduino
2007/2/19, Adrian Lienhard <[hidden email]>:

> 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
>
>

FULL AGREE.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: election details *PLEASE READ*

Edgar J. De Cleene
In reply to this post by Ron Teitelbaum



El 2/19/07 4:08 PM, "Ron Teitelbaum" <[hidden email]> escribió:

> 7) Should Tim be given a gazillon dollars for his excellent work on Squeak?
And be nominated officially Imperator and all swore loyalty to he :=)



       

       
               
__________________________________________________
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


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: election details *PLEASE READ*

timrowledge

On 19-Feb-07, at 12:42 PM, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:

>
>
>
> El 2/19/07 4:08 PM, "Ron Teitelbaum" <[hidden email]> escribió:
>
>> 7) Should Tim be given a gazillon dollars for his excellent work  
>> on Squeak?
> And be nominated officially Imperator and all swore loyalty to he :=)

Hmm, I could handle the gazillion dollars and I think I'd probably do  
stuff most people would approve of. On the other hand, I've had  
executive power etc and it isn't as much fun as you'd think.


tim
--
tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Useful random insult:- Couldn't pour water out of a boot with  
instructions on the heel.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: election details *PLEASE READ*

Edgar J. De Cleene



El 2/19/07 6:13 PM, "tim Rowledge" <[hidden email]> escribió:

> Hmm, I could handle the gazillion dollars and I think I'd probably do
> stuff most people would approve of. On the other hand, I've had
> executive power etc and it isn't as much fun as you'd think.


I deep know what higher is the position , higher is the charge.
That's why I don't run. Better I do work in a less dangerous place.
You always shows what I think is a good sense of humor, maybe I do a bad
joke.
I support you and hope don't take offense.

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


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: election details (was "Squeak Foundation Board 2007 Candidates")

Roel Wuyts
In reply to this post by Daniel Vainsencher-3
Yes, I think that is a clean way to approach this.

In my opinion it is not the task of an election committee to prepare  
questions or start a discussion (no matter how well the intentions,  
as in this case). It is the task of the committee to help the process  
though: setting up a wiki, provide a resume with all the names of the  
candidates, ask all the candidates for a small abstract of their  
plans and a link to more detailed information, etc.

The rest is up to the candidates and the voters: candidates can do a  
campaign (if they want to!). Voters can ask questions using this very  
mailing list, and candidates can then reply (or not, if they consider  
this to be their strategy). Since voting is not obligatory this is  
ok. Yes, it will be messy (e.g. lots of mails), so the committee  
could ask to use a special tag in the subject of vote-related  
messages, and try to manage it (e.g. from time to time remind people  
to use this tag).

On 19 Feb 2007, at 19 February/20:45, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:

> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: election details *PLEASE READ*

J J-6
In reply to this post by Ron Teitelbaum
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 MSN®
Shopping.
http://shopping.msn.com/default/shp/?ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=24102&tcode=T001MSN20A0701


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: election details

Ron Teitelbaum
All,

As a voter I would like people to answer my questions, but I'm abstaining
from asking again.  I will most likely vote for candidates that spend some
time actually participating in a conversation, answering questions, filling
in the wiki page and addressing issues about building, managing, and
supporting our community.  

The conversation is very hard to get going so I hope that we can do it
before it's time to vote.  So far the results are disappointing.  I'll just
send this post from last years election again when the election is over
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2006-February/101095.
html

Ron Teitelbaum
Squeak Community Member

> -----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
>
>



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: election details

timrowledge
A significant number of questions seem to be on the *technical*  
aspects of Squeak. As I have tried to explain (http://wiki.squeak.org/ 
squeak/5932) I do not see the *foundation board* as a technical forum  
but rather one dedicated to the running of the foundation. Technical  
matters more properly belong with a technical forum, something I  
think we will want to establish.

As such, I have no intention of answering technical questions in the  
context of the board elections.

In re. the matters I see as relevant to a board election:-
- I would love to increase fund-raising and we have in fact made a  
small but hopefully profitable start by ordering in stock of more of  
the well received enamel badges
- I like the general principle of bounties and sponsorships etc but I  
have some problems with how they can be organised so that they are  
seen as fair, equitable, transparent and worthwhile. And you can't go  
offering bounties without having funds to pay them!
- I (indeed all the current board) support finding a sensible legal  
basis of establishment for the foundation. It may be independent  
incorporation, it might be association with another body, it might be  
taking over a small nation and claiming sovereignty.
- I suggest establishing a technical forum to co-ordinate and push  
the technical areas of Squeak

tim
--
tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Useful random insult:- One chip short of a cookie.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: election details

Blake-5
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:46:54 -0800, tim Rowledge <[hidden email]> wrote:

> - I like the general principle of bounties and sponsorships etc but I  
> have some problems with how they can be organised so that they are seen  
> as fair, equitable, transparent and worthwhile. And you can't go  
> offering bounties without having funds to pay them!

Damn.

<scraps plans to offer a jillion dollars for Spoon to be finished>

1234 ... 7