Squeak People Certification

Hi Herbert,

I know I'm late but I had to hack that damed DNN customer site today :(

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:04:55 +0100, you wrote:
Let me try to encourage you (and perhaps other reluctant people) to get  
you an SqP account. This is the only way to be visible to other Squeakers  
when they poke around in the SqP information.

That you or somebody else may indeed get an unwanted label is just the way  
how life is organized, sh*t happens. Unfortunately there can be no method  
in TestCase for checking the label for consistency, or even ethics, etc.  
But there is an facility called email and one can send a note to anyone  
else who went too far (in the positive or negative direction).

After all, all the people who already are on SqP have *exactly* the same  
problem and you are *not* an exception :)

/Klaus

I just wanted to say that I at least consider SqP (or something like it)
to be a very important experiment.

To do various things (such as elections) as a community, we need
mechanisms (voting). Whenever the things we want to do have a chance of
being important, we need our mechanisms to take account of trust in some
way.

Most traditional ways of handling trust (membership lists, payments,
...) simply *suck* in the sense of requiring lots of centralized manual
work. SqP, while requiring some work of newcomers and the users that
certify them, is not creating that work, but just spreading it around.

It also has the advantage that it has a chance of scaling, and by its
nature it allows us to spread trust relatively quickly, while protecting
us somewhat against a possible hostile takeover. IIRC, there's an API to
it, so other applications can reuse the same effort for completely
different purposes. All of these latter advantages are somewhat iffy -
that's the experiment.

But it has a better chance of working in these ways than other methods
we've found on the elections list, and it definitely allows us to
decentralize the work of managing trust, preventing the elections
process from being so much of a chore nobody wants to do it.

So please do use it. Do not feel embarrassed about asking for
certification, its a result of the mechanism we chose, not your own ego.
Do give people solid reasons to certify you - they want to do justice to
the trust invested in them, so point at your projects, interests and so
forth. And in turn, if anyone you know joins the community, go ahead and
certify them proactively.

Thanks,
Daniel Vainsencher

Ken Causey wrote:

Stéphane Rollandin <[hidden email]> writes:
> Herbert König wrote:
> > My reason not to vote is that I'm sensitive to labels tacked onto me.
> > The only SqPeople status I'm comfortable with is Observer. The
> > possibility of anybody sticking one of the other labels (including
> > master) at me keeps me from having an account there.
>
> I had very similar feelings until this very morning, when I eventually
> thought that if I was to wait for things to be perfect before I allow
> myself to participate it was going to be a tad longuish.
 


Add me to the list.  I would prefer us to have a registration process
with clear criteria for who gets to vote.  These decisions are hard
but important.  They define what our community is.

Is posting on the mailing list enough?  Do you have to contribute
code?  What about editing documentation?  What if you are a big-wig
with some *other* Smalltalk system?

We would do better to talk about it and decide.


Lex

How does one retrieve one's password for Squeak People login.

I signed up years ago but haven't logged in--maybe ever. :-)

On 2/20/07, Karl <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The interface of SqueakPeople is a little hard to navigate.
>
[...]

It is. SqP is a C-based Apache module, so I'm not spending maintenance
time on it. Someone needs to step up and help moving the thing to a
Squeak-based site, then we can start working on the various wish-lists
I have laying around :)

On 20 Feb 2007 19:13:59 -0500, Lex Spoon <[hidden email]> wrote:
> We would do better to talk about it and decide.
>
Personally, I'm not going to participate in this discussion. Because
we talked about it and we decided, last year. Nothing changed so far,
no need to spend time on this discussion.

Lex Spoon skrev: I would say people can vote if they have shown a interest in Squeak and
it is possible to recognize that person as a real person eg.: they have
created a accont on Squeak People and added some notes or links
documenting what they use Squeak for or why they are interested in Squeak.

> Is posting on the mailing list enough?  Do you have to contribute
> code?  What about editing documentation?  What if you are a big-wig
> with some *other* Smalltalk system?
>
> We would do better to talk about it and decide.
>  
Some people are using etoys, OLPC, Scratch, Sophie, Croquet  or another
subsystem of Squeak and will possibly never use the code browser etc but
they can still have a strong interest in Squeak. As others have stated,
Squeakfoundation is not a technical entity but more a entity to help
with the communication and certain logistic functions of the community,
and I think everyone with a stated interest in Squeak should be able to
vote.

Karl

Cees de Groot wrote:
I'd be happy to "help" move it to a Pier-based site.

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

OK, so you've misplaced/forgotten your SqP password.  Shame on you for
not using the account more. ;)  But this is not unusual.

At this time there is no automatic method for handling this but here is
what you do:

Send email from the email address you specified when you setup your SqP
account to [hidden email] requesting that your
password be reset.  Be sure to specify your SqP account name.  Also
specify whether you would prefer that I send you your existing password
or generate a new random password.  If you do not specify I will
generate a new random password.  I will then email the address specified
under the account with the password.

Ken

On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 00:26 -0800, Blake wrote:
> How does one retrieve one's password for Squeak People login.
>
> I signed up years ago but haven't logged in--maybe ever. :-)
>
>

Oh, an addendum:  What if you no longer have access to the email address
you specified when you setup your SqP account?  Email
[hidden email], specify your account name, tell
us you no longer have access to the email account, and I will figure out
something.

Ken

On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 10:55 -0600, Ken Causey wrote:

Ron, etc-

Done

Aaron Reichow wrote:

Done.

I've certified you.

Cheers.
gsa.

2007/2/22, Aaron Reichow <[hidden email]>:
> Ron, etc-
>
> Would someone who might know of my work or my time with Squeak (since 1999)
> could rate me? My username is revaaron.  Thanks! If I don't get a response,
> I'll start tracking some of you guys down... >:-)
>
> Regards,
> Aaron
>

"Cees de Groot" <[hidden email]> writes:
> On 20 Feb 2007 19:13:59 -0500, Lex Spoon <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > We would do better to talk about it and decide.
> >
> Personally, I'm not going to participate in this discussion. Because
> we talked about it and we decided, last year. Nothing changed so far,
> no need to spend time on this discussion.


Clearly, "we" made no such decision, as evidenced by this very thread.

People are posting that they do not like using an automatic reputation
system to define who is in the group.  It is especially bad to use a
system whose properties are neither known [1] nor discussed [2].

Community membership is the heart of a community.  Are we going to
bother?  Who does the SqueakFoundation represent?


-Lex


[1] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/elections/2005-December/000010.html

[2] There is no 2.  We are still just doing whatever.

"We": you and I in particular participated in this discussion on the
elections team mailing list [1]. You were not convinced, but this is the
available solution that the elections team decided on [2].

I agree with you that is an important issue. Just for clarity's sake -
the decision on what system to use for *this* election will not be
changed 4 days before voting begins. If you want to vote, please do
register on SqP.

Daniel Vainsencher

[1] -
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/elections/2005-December/thread.html
[2] -
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/elections/2006-January/000094.html

Lex Spoon wrote:

Daniel Vainsencher <[hidden email]> writes:
> "We": you and I in particular participated in this discussion on the
> elections team mailing list [1]. You were not convinced, but this is
> the available solution that the elections team decided on [2].
>
> I agree with you that is an important issue. Just for clarity's sake -
> the decision on what system to use for *this* election will not be
> changed 4 days before voting begins. If you want to vote, please do
> register on SqP.


Certainly, I would not suggest it.

I just objected to Cees apparently declaring the issue beyond
discussion.


-Lex