Terms of Reference: discussion is open
Locked
123
123
Terms of Reference: discussion is open
 
|
The discussion about Squeak Oversight Board Terms of Reference is now open.
Please review the page on board's blog (http://squeakboard.wordpress.com/discussion-terms-of-reference/) is page and do not hesitate to take a part in discussion. With your help, let us define clearly what is the range of Board’s responsibilities, what decisions Board allowed to make and what is not. Where lies the end of Board’s power and starting power of Teams and/or individuals. You can, of course, post here, or add comments on blog. -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. |
Re: Terms of Reference: discussion is open
|
|
Igor Stasenko wrote:
> The discussion about Squeak Oversight Board Terms of Reference is now open. > > Please review the page on board's blog > (http://squeakboard.wordpress.com/discussion-terms-of-reference/) is > page and do not hesitate to take a part in discussion. > > With your help, let us define clearly what is the range of Board’s > responsibilities, what decisions Board allowed to make and what is > not. Where lies the end of Board’s power and starting power of Teams > and/or individuals. > > You can, of course, post here, or add comments on blog Hi Folks, The Team model failed. We don't have enough knowledgeable people with available time to donate to cover all parts of Squeak. The Board is the only way we have to make decisions. I propose giving the Board complete rights to make any decision. When taking important decisions the Board might decide to ask the Assembly to vote. The Assembly is made of core contributors to Squeak. Only the Board and core contributors have influence on the decisions. This will help to keep Squeak following its objectives, and will make it likely there will be people to actually put into practice the decisions made. We still need a reasonable way to identify core contributors, though. What do you think? Cheers, Juan Vuletich |
Re: Terms of Reference: discussion is open
|
|
Juan Vuletich wrote:
> The Team model failed. We don't have enough knowledgeable people with > available time to donate to cover all parts of Squeak. > > The Board is the only way we have to make decisions. I propose giving > the Board complete rights to make any decision. When taking important > decisions the Board might decide to ask the Assembly to vote. The > Assembly is made of core contributors to Squeak. Only the Board and core > contributors have influence on the decisions. This will help to keep > Squeak following its objectives, and will make it likely there will be > people to actually put into practice the decisions made. We still need a > reasonable way to identify core contributors, though. > > What do you think? I'm with you on this. I want a strong board, a board that can and does make decisions, a board that correct its course of action where necessary. I think the terms of reference should state explicitly that: * the board is ultimately responsible for ensuring ongoing development and timely releases of Squeak * the board is responsible for creating an environment in which the community can contribute code and otherwise participate * the board can delegate its responsibilities to members of the community (teams) to take care of whatever needs to be done There are some parts that are quite reasonable but I think it needs to be stated clearly that "the buck stops here" i.e., with the board. It is our assumed duty as shepherds of the community to make sure that development goes on. It is our duty to make sure releases happen. It is our duty to ensure Squeak is present and visible. We can delegate some or all of it (and do so where we can because all of us are doing this in our spare time) but it doesn't release us from the responsibility, and implies guidance and oversight on the board's behalf. The good news here is that because of we have elections every year it's quite easy to change things - run for the board. If you feel that a significant part or direction in the community is underrepresented, please run! Make your voice heard, that's what the elections are for. Cheers, - Andreas |
Re: Re: Terms of Reference: discussion is open
|
|
Well , all is about the now obsolete previous Release Team model and Keith ideas about how Squeak should be made (and disagree with he by several people). On 11/5/09 3:09 AM, "Andreas Raab" <[hidden email]> wrote: > * the board is ultimately responsible for ensuring ongoing development > and timely releases of Squeak > * the board is responsible for creating an environment in which the > community can contribute code and otherwise participate > * the board can delegate its responsibilities to members of the > community (teams) to take care of whatever needs to be done Can't be more clear > The good news here is that because of we have elections every year it's > quite easy to change things - run for the board. If you feel that a > significant part or direction in the community is underrepresented, > please run! Make your voice heard, that's what the elections are for. Another very clear. The current model of moving Squeak is working , with minor disagrees. So maybe is best discuss Squeak2010 ? What we want. Smaller and More Modular is my wish. We agree with current model ? Yes No We agree with Andreas way ? Yes No Candidates for next Board ? |
Re: Terms of Reference: discussion is open
|
|
In reply to this post by Igor Stasenko
On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 11:25:13PM +0200, Igor Stasenko wrote:
> The discussion about Squeak Oversight Board Terms of Reference is now open. > > Please review the page on board's blog > (http://squeakboard.wordpress.com/discussion-terms-of-reference/) is > page and do not hesitate to take a part in discussion. > > With your help, let us define clearly what is the range of Board???s > responsibilities, what decisions Board allowed to make and what is > not. Where lies the end of Board???s power and starting power of Teams > and/or individuals. I am perfectly happy to have the board actually do what it was elected to do, and I see no reason to inhibit the board from providing oversight and taking action if needed. That includes invoking the SOGOTP clause in the rare case of a previously chartered team blocking the overall progress of the community while pursuing vaguely defined objectives on an unspecified timeline. Full credit to the board for facing the issue publicly, but I vote to stop worrying about this and carry on with Squeaking. Dave |
Re: Terms of Reference: discussion is open
|
|
2009/11/5 David T. Lewis <[hidden email]>:
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 11:25:13PM +0200, Igor Stasenko wrote: >> The discussion about Squeak Oversight Board Terms of Reference is now open. >> >> Please review the page on board's blog >> (http://squeakboard.wordpress.com/discussion-terms-of-reference/) is >> page and do not hesitate to take a part in discussion. >> >> With your help, let us define clearly what is the range of Board???s >> responsibilities, what decisions Board allowed to make and what is >> not. Where lies the end of Board???s power and starting power of Teams >> and/or individuals. > > I am perfectly happy to have the board actually do what it was elected > to do, and I see no reason to inhibit the board from providing oversight > and taking action if needed. That includes invoking the SOGOTP clause > in the rare case of a previously chartered team blocking the overall > progress of the community while pursuing vaguely defined objectives > on an unspecified timeline. > > Full credit to the board for facing the issue publicly, but I vote to > stop worrying about this and carry on with Squeaking. > I am also prefer to worry about technical stuff, rather than political & bureaucratic. But we had a call from community to define these terms, so in case of questions or conflict we will have something we could refer to. > Dave > > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. |
Squeak direction: Was: Re: Terms of Reference: discussion is open
|
|
I don't want to start a flame but so will end. Anyway...
>From some weeks to date I have been wondering what is the point of so many little and not so little random fixes going to trunk (not minimizing the effort or quality of them, that they indeed have). I have entered the Squeak page and nowhere could I find a single sentence about the goals that motivated so may changes. Are they trying to fix Monticello (fix what)? Are they trying to fix input (unicode, japanese, russian, what?)? Are they trying to fix collections (were they broken?)? Are they trying to get some social results by experimenting with the number of automated mails about said fixes and reactions of people? This are some of the headers of the 524 (in my inbox) mails sent automatically for each single commit to the squeak trunk. [squeak-dev] The Trunk: Tools-bf.106.mcz [aug 20, 2009] [squeak-dev] The Trunk: MonticelloConfigurations-edc.60.mcz [aug 21, 2009] [squeak-dev] The Trunk: MonticelloConfigurations-ar.61.mcz [aug 21, 2009] ... [squeak-dev] The Trunk: Monticello-ul.331.mcz [oct 05, 2009] Some could say that they show that are a lot of work (because are a lot of commits) but you could also say that they are part of just two or three single goals (e.g Fixing monticello and fixing collections) although with each single goal implemented as 200 commits, all part of the same overall change. That way it doesn't look as much work being done. I tried to look in the squeak page for a list of goals or milestones that the individual commits are trying to fix and couldn't find any. So I can't get the overall picture. The squeak list is full of commits mails that for a new user say nothing. On the other side, the page is the same old outdated page with no hints about where the squeak is going on. What is a new user to learn about this? Or to expect about squeak in a give timeframe? Then is the issue of the blog vs. list discussions. Igor, has posted a terms of reference request for discussion in the blog, not in the list. This touch a point that Keith put in the table four or five months ago and nobody wanted to discuss in the moment? Has something changed now that the topic is worth discussing? The meat of the discussion is the role of the board. And that is something that I can't understand because four months ago the de facto solution was to give the board time to organize and later, they promised, they will show the road to follow. But I don't see that today. Today we are in the same point that before, without established responsibilities/limits and without a published road for squeak. Too bad. The squeak oversigth blog list the agendas for each meeting: 11/18/2009 Free server hosting options Terms of Reference Packaging/Distribution of Contributed Packages with Release SFC/Relicensing Promotion and Visibility of Squeak Development Progress Squeak Swiki Improvement Comment with any suggestions. 11/4/2009 Terms of Reference Free Server Hosting Options SFC/Relicensing Promotion and Visibility of Squeak Development Progress Squeak Swiki Improvement 10/21/2009 Should we be paying attention to something? Let us know… Community Server/Services Hosting SFC/Relicensing Promotion and Visibility of Squeak Development Progress The technical responsibilities of the Board Squeak Swiki Improvement 10/7/2009 SFC/Relicensing Promotion and Visibility of Squeak – OOPSLA, ECOOP? Internal Processes Development Progress The technical responsibilities of the Board Squeak Swiki Improvement 9/16/2009 SFC/Relicensing Promotion and Visibility of Squeak Internal Processes Development Progress The technical responsibilities of the Board Squeak Swiki Improvement 9/2/2009 Internal Processes Development Progress Relicensing Progress The technical responsibilities of the Board Squeak Swiki Improvement 8/19/2009 Suggestions are appreciated. Development Progress Relicensing Progress The technical responsibilities of the Board 8/5/2009 Development Progress Relicensing Progress The technical responsibilities of the Board Squeak Swiki upgrade/replacement 7/15/2009 Development Model Progress Relicensing Release Progress 7/1/2009 3.11 Status 4.0/Relicensing Status Squeak Swiki update or replacement Teams 5/7/2009 Project Updates Licensing Status Mission Statement Teams Updates Process improvements 4/17/2009 Project Updates Seconds (aka backups) Licensing Release Mission Statement Teams Positioning towards other communities Process improvements (BPPs, decision making etc) And so and so... Do you see the trend? Discussions and discussions from at least april 2009 and nothing that a external unknowing user could say about the future of squeak. Summary, squeak has no direction and we are not better now than 6 months ago. So finally, the question? Where is Squeak going? As said, I don't want a flame but it is really disappointing to see this community getting lost in the color of the bikeshed. http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/misc.html#BIKESHED-PAINTING Board, do one thing: Make decisions not discussions. Put a list of goals move the boat that way. Cheers -- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx |
Re: Squeak direction: Was: Re: Terms of Reference: discussion is open
|
|
2009/11/5 Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez <[hidden email]>:
> I don't want to start a flame but so will end. Anyway... > > >From some weeks to date I have been wondering what is the point of so > many little and not so little random fixes going to trunk (not > minimizing the effort or quality of them, that they indeed have). > I have entered the Squeak page and nowhere could I find a single > sentence about the goals that motivated so may changes. > > Are they trying to fix Monticello (fix what)? > Are they trying to fix input (unicode, japanese, russian, what?)? > Are they trying to fix collections (were they broken?)? > Are they trying to get some social results by experimenting with the > number of automated mails about said fixes and reactions of people? > > This are some of the headers of the 524 (in my inbox) mails sent > automatically for each single commit to the squeak trunk. > > [squeak-dev] The Trunk: Tools-bf.106.mcz [aug 20, 2009] > [squeak-dev] The Trunk: MonticelloConfigurations-edc.60.mcz [aug 21, > 2009] > [squeak-dev] The Trunk: MonticelloConfigurations-ar.61.mcz [aug 21, > 2009] > ... > [squeak-dev] The Trunk: Monticello-ul.331.mcz [oct 05, 2009] > > Some could say that they show that are a lot of work (because are a lot > of commits) but you could also say that they are part of just two or > three single goals (e.g Fixing monticello and fixing collections) > although with each single goal implemented as 200 commits, all part of > the same overall change. That way it doesn't look as much work being > done. > > I tried to look in the squeak page for a list of goals or milestones > that the individual commits are trying to fix and couldn't find any. So > I can't get the overall picture. The squeak list is full of commits > mails that for a new user say nothing. On the other side, the page is > the same old outdated page with no hints about where the squeak is going > on. > > What is a new user to learn about this? Or to expect about squeak in a > give timeframe? > > Then is the issue of the blog vs. list discussions. Igor, has posted a > terms of reference request for discussion in the blog, not in the list. > This touch a point that Keith put in the table four or five months ago > and nobody wanted to discuss in the moment? Has something changed now > that the topic is worth discussing? The meat of the discussion is the > role of the board. And that is something that I can't understand because > four months ago the de facto solution was to give the board time to > organize and later, they promised, they will show the road to follow. > But I don't see that today. Today we are in the same point that before, > without established responsibilities/limits and without a published road > for squeak. Too bad. > > The squeak oversigth blog list the agendas for each meeting: > > > And so and so... > > Do you see the trend? > Discussions and discussions from at least april 2009 and nothing that a > external unknowing user could say about the future of squeak. > it would be a surprise to see a discussions about squeak directions every two weeks, isnt? What you see is a stuff which put on a table. If you miss something - where you been and not proposed the topic for discussion over these 6 months, which you think important? Or do you think that board members should read people minds and discuss unspoken thoughts? As for Keith's proposals: first time i heard about them not long ago in IRC chat, and i reacted. Maybe he had mentioned this before, i don't know. But i think its not fair to blame the whole board for not paying attention. If he wanted to bring this topic to the table, then there should be a clear message somewhere, easy to find. But if such proposals siting somewhere in 20th post on a different topic, then its not a surprise that nobody noticed it. I repeat: nobody noticed! I hope you understand that there were no insidious plans, full of secrecy behind the scenes to ignore such request(s). Because if its true, then you won't be seeing this :) As for movement, fixes, and overall progress: board could decide what to do, but only if there is people willing to do anything, or if there a two or more different views on same problem. But if there is no-one willing to contribute, making decisions about directions is pointless, because there is nobody to implement them. > Summary, squeak has no direction and we are not better now than 6 months > ago. > > So finally, the question? > > Where is Squeak going? > > As said, I don't want a flame but it is really disappointing to see this > community getting lost in the color of the bikeshed. > > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/misc.html#BIKESHED-PAINTING > > Board, do one thing: Make decisions not discussions. > > Put a list of goals move the boat that way. > Here my list: - make it license clean - make it modular these decision(s) made a couple of years ago, and we still stick with them. > Cheers > > -- > Miguel Cobá > http://miguel.leugim.com.mx > > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. |
Re: Squeak direction: Was: Re: Terms of Reference: discussion is open
|
|
On 11/5/09 4:27 PM, "Igor Stasenko" <[hidden email]> wrote: > > As for Keith's proposals: first time i heard about them not long ago > in IRC chat, and i reacted. Ha ha ha. Good joke ! Only Board member and qualified Squeaker who don't know ? I don't agree with Keith 98% of the time, but you can't said he don't try to discuss about the release process and how he think Squeak should be made. Edgar |
Re: Terms of Reference: discussion is open
|
|
In reply to this post by David T. Lewis
On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 09:09:14AM -0500, David T. Lewis wrote:
> I am perfectly happy to have the board actually do what it was elected > to do, and I see no reason to inhibit the board from providing oversight > and taking action if needed. That includes invoking the SOGOTP clause > in the rare case of a previously chartered team blocking the overall > progress of the community while pursuing vaguely defined objectives > on an unspecified timeline. Yes. Keith and I were blocking progress by remaining silent. The board did the right thing taking things into their own hands. By the way, I'm the one being quoted as "tapple" in the blog post, in case you didn't know > Full credit to the board for facing the issue publicly, but I vote to > stop worrying about this and carry on with Squeaking. No; it needs to be defined what the board is responsible for if we want to prevent disagreements over responsibilities leading to flamewars and burnout in the future. This is the best board squeak has ever had. Great job guys. -- Matthew Fulmer (a.k.a. Tapple) |
Re: Squeak direction: Was: Re: Terms of Reference: discussion is open
|
|
In reply to this post by Edgar J. De Cleene
2009/11/5 Edgar J. De Cleene <[hidden email]>:
> > > > On 11/5/09 4:27 PM, "Igor Stasenko" <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> >> As for Keith's proposals: first time i heard about them not long ago >> in IRC chat, and i reacted. > > Ha ha ha. > > Good joke ! > Only Board member and qualified Squeaker who don't know ? > > I don't agree with Keith 98% of the time, but you can't said he don't try to > discuss about the release process and how he think Squeak should be made. > > Edgar > > > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. |
Re: Squeak direction: Was: Re: Terms of Reference: discussion is open
|
|
In reply to this post by Miguel Cobá
The crux of the problem that the Terms of Reference discussion has been initiated to solve, in my opinion is:
1. The release team had previously clearly outlined the path forward and this path was apparently approved by the board: Refer to: <http://installer.pbworks.com/SqueakReleaseTeam> <http://installer.pbworks.com/Squeak311> <http://installer.pbworks.com/Squeak311Proposal> <http://installer.pbworks.com/Squeak311Proposal> 2. Somebody in their great wisdom got excited at a certain point that there had been no release for some time, even tho it had been clearly documented and approved that 3.11 was not about a release per se, but mostly about improving the tools and process. Then the board dictatorially instituted the new development model, saying deceptively that the new development model was just an experiment. There was no discussion with the current release team, there was no attempt made to help understand and improve the existing tools and process, there was no attempt made to work with the release team going forward. And there was no attempt made to bring the desires of the board to the release team in order to improve any perceived shortfall of the release team. The board's thoughtless actions resulted in the total sidelining and destruction of the previous significant progress made towards improving tools and process for the benefit of all of the Squeak community, work done mainly by Keith. In my mind, the actions by the board were in this case totally unacceptable and there is a great need to institute some binding rules (Terms of Reference) to ensure this sort of thing never happens again. There still is no clearly communicated vision of the path forward via the new development model. How will this new development model be merged and integrated with the previously clearly communicated and board approved release path? How does the new development model benefit the Squeak community as a whole, including the various forks? How does the new development model improve the methodology for maintaining external packages such as Monticello? How the the new development model improve the methodology for modularizing and removing sections of code that can preferentially be maintained as externally loadable and unloadable packages? Ken G. Brown At 11:13 AM -0600 11/5/09, Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez apparently wrote: >I don't want to start a flame but so will end. Anyway... > >>From some weeks to date I have been wondering what is the point of so >many little and not so little random fixes going to trunk (not >minimizing the effort or quality of them, that they indeed have). >I have entered the Squeak page and nowhere could I find a single >sentence about the goals that motivated so may changes. > >Are they trying to fix Monticello (fix what)? >Are they trying to fix input (unicode, japanese, russian, what?)? >Are they trying to fix collections (were they broken?)? >Are they trying to get some social results by experimenting with the >number of automated mails about said fixes and reactions of people? > >This are some of the headers of the 524 (in my inbox) mails sent >automatically for each single commit to the squeak trunk. > >[squeak-dev] The Trunk: Tools-bf.106.mcz [aug 20, 2009] >[squeak-dev] The Trunk: MonticelloConfigurations-edc.60.mcz [aug 21, >2009] >[squeak-dev] The Trunk: MonticelloConfigurations-ar.61.mcz [aug 21, >2009] >... >[squeak-dev] The Trunk: Monticello-ul.331.mcz [oct 05, 2009] > >Some could say that they show that are a lot of work (because are a lot >of commits) but you could also say that they are part of just two or >three single goals (e.g Fixing monticello and fixing collections) >although with each single goal implemented as 200 commits, all part of >the same overall change. That way it doesn't look as much work being >done. > >I tried to look in the squeak page for a list of goals or milestones >that the individual commits are trying to fix and couldn't find any. So >I can't get the overall picture. The squeak list is full of commits >mails that for a new user say nothing. On the other side, the page is >the same old outdated page with no hints about where the squeak is going >on. > >What is a new user to learn about this? Or to expect about squeak in a >give timeframe? > >Then is the issue of the blog vs. list discussions. Igor, has posted a >terms of reference request for discussion in the blog, not in the list. >This touch a point that Keith put in the table four or five months ago >and nobody wanted to discuss in the moment? Has something changed now >that the topic is worth discussing? The meat of the discussion is the >role of the board. And that is something that I can't understand because >four months ago the de facto solution was to give the board time to >organize and later, they promised, they will show the road to follow. >But I don't see that today. Today we are in the same point that before, >without established responsibilities/limits and without a published road >for squeak. Too bad. > >The squeak oversigth blog list the agendas for each meeting: > >11/18/2009 >Free server hosting options >Terms of Reference >Packaging/Distribution of Contributed Packages with Release >SFC/Relicensing >Promotion and Visibility of Squeak >Development Progress >Squeak Swiki Improvement >Comment with any suggestions. > >11/4/2009 >Terms of Reference >Free Server Hosting Options >SFC/Relicensing >Promotion and Visibility of Squeak >Development Progress >Squeak Swiki Improvement > >10/21/2009 >Should we be paying attention to something? Let us know >Community Server/Services Hosting >SFC/Relicensing >Promotion and Visibility of Squeak >Development Progress >The technical responsibilities of the Board >Squeak Swiki Improvement > >10/7/2009 >SFC/Relicensing >Promotion and Visibility of Squeak - OOPSLA, ECOOP? >Internal Processes >Development Progress >The technical responsibilities of the Board >Squeak Swiki Improvement > >9/16/2009 >SFC/Relicensing >Promotion and Visibility of Squeak >Internal Processes >Development Progress >The technical responsibilities of the Board >Squeak Swiki Improvement > >9/2/2009 >Internal Processes >Development Progress >Relicensing Progress >The technical responsibilities of the Board >Squeak Swiki Improvement > >8/19/2009 >Suggestions are appreciated. >Development Progress >Relicensing Progress >The technical responsibilities of the Board > >8/5/2009 >Development Progress >Relicensing Progress >The technical responsibilities of the Board >Squeak Swiki upgrade/replacement > >7/15/2009 >Development Model Progress >Relicensing Release Progress > >7/1/2009 >3.11 Status >4.0/Relicensing Status >Squeak Swiki update or replacement >Teams > >5/7/2009 >Project Updates >Licensing Status >Mission Statement >Teams Updates >Process improvements > >4/17/2009 >Project Updates >Seconds (aka backups) >Licensing Release >Mission Statement >Teams >Positioning towards other communities >Process improvements (BPPs, decision making etc) > >And so and so... > >Do you see the trend? >Discussions and discussions from at least april 2009 and nothing that a >external unknowing user could say about the future of squeak. > >Summary, squeak has no direction and we are not better now than 6 months >ago. > >So finally, the question? > >Where is Squeak going? > >As said, I don't want a flame but it is really disappointing to see this >community getting lost in the color of the bikeshed. > >http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/misc.html#BIKESHED-PAINTING > >Board, do one thing: Make decisions not discussions. > >Put a list of goals move the boat that way. > >Cheers > >-- >Miguel Cobá >http://miguel.leugim.com.mx |
Re: Terms of Reference: discussion is open
|
|
In reply to this post by David T. Lewis
I pointed out to Keith on IRC a while ago that it was simply impossible
for the board to "break the rules" since we have never had any rules. He has kindly suggested a possible set of such rules and I think that is a good starting point for a discussion. In the page in the blog I have added some links to the rules or organizations of other Free Software projects. Most other project have no rules that I could find and even these are pretty informal. Given that our community is pretty small, that elections are frequent (every 12 months) and that re-elections are very common (most of the current board was part of the previous one), I don't think most of the proposed rules would help very much. I'll make a brief comment on each one: 1) [board selects team and lets it decide all else] This wasn't done by the previous board for the web team: one group proposed using Seaside and another Aida such that by picking a team a technical decision was being made indirectly. I think that this will often be the case for future issues as well. 2) and 3) [avoid conflict of interest, board member should follow same rules as everyone else] This was violated in a big way with the creation of the Trunk repository, where all board members automatically became core developers along with several other people. In general, however, board members have had enough sense of fair play that this hasn't yet been a big problem, in my own opinion (other people might feel very differently). The problem with these two rules are that it isn't very easy to check that they are being followed since "unfair" is rather subjective. I would rather see this as part of some "declaration of principals" than as a "term of reference", but perhaps there isn't much difference between these. 4) and 5) [how teams and the board should interact] This is actually how things were done in most cases. The one exception was the Trunk thing (if you consider that a replacement of 3.11 rather than a third effort parallel with the on-going 3.11 and 4.0 ones). So I agree with this one. 6) [no general rules for internal team communication] Sure. 7) [board delegates all real work to teams] I interpreted the results of this year's election as a desire for a more "hands on" board that makes technical decisions directly. So I don't think the community would be happy with this rule. 8) [respect decisions from previous board] Like I said above, most of the current board was also the previous one. They changed their minds about some things and I don't think there should be a rule preventing them from doing so. 9) There should be a grievance procedure and an equal opportunities policy including disability awareness I didn't attempt to paraphrase this because I didn't understand it. One thing that Keith mentioned, a "vote of no confidence" followed by an ad hoc election, didn't get included in this list. Without that I don't see what the answer could be to "what happens if the rules get broken?" Given that the next election is at most 12 months away and that any ad hoc election would probably pick the exact same board that was just kicked out, I am against such a rule. But without it, none of the others "have any teeth". I would be happy with general principals rather than rules, and the board has previous tried to define that: http://squeakboard.wordpress.com/our-mission/ -- Jecel |
Re: Squeak direction: Was: Re: Terms of Reference: discussion is open
|
|
In reply to this post by Edgar J. De Cleene
Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
> On 11/5/09 4:27 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: > > As for Keith's proposals: first time i heard about them not long ago > > in IRC chat, and i reacted. > > Ha ha ha. > > Good joke ! > Only Board member and qualified Squeaker who don't know ? > > I don't agree with Keith 98% of the time, but you can't said he don't try to > discuss about the release process and how he think Squeak should be made. By "Keith's proposals" Igor meant the set of rules Keith suggested for the board and teams recently on IRC, which Igor then brought to the board for discussion and we have brought to squeak-dev. Igor was not aware of previous attempts to define such rules even though Miguel said this discussion was many months old. For one attempt to start this discussion, see my post from February - http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2009-February/134 288.html -- Jecel |
Re: Squeak direction: Was: Re: Terms of Reference: discussion is open
|
|
In reply to this post by Igor Stasenko
El jue, 05-11-2009 a las 20:27 +0200, Igor Stasenko escribió:
> > it would be a surprise to see a discussions about squeak directions > every two weeks, isnt? > What you see is a stuff which put on a table. If you miss something - > where you been and not proposed > the topic for discussion over these 6 months, which you think important? > Or do you think that board members should read people minds and > discuss unspoken thoughts? I agree, but isn't hard to put a posible list of milestones to the community as a draft of tasks to do and choose the ones with more votes from the community, just as you do at the end of this message. Something like that will be good. Right now the Squeak community hasn't even a clue about what will be touched by changes made to squeak. > > As for Keith's proposals: first time i heard about them not long ago > in IRC chat, and i reacted. > Maybe he had mentioned this before, i don't know. But i think its not > fair to blame the whole board for not paying attention. > If he wanted to bring this topic to the table, then there should be a > clear message somewhere, easy to find. > But if such proposals siting somewhere in 20th post on a different > topic, then its not a surprise that nobody noticed it. > I repeat: nobody noticed! I hope you understand that there were no > insidious plans, full of secrecy behind the scenes to ignore such > request(s). Because if its true, then you won't be seeing this :) > I don't accuse anyone of secrecy or something like that. That isn't the reason of my mail, but to know what can we expect from Squeak. The only consistent issue expressed by the board is the relicensing one. Respect to Keith's points I'm not endorsing all his views, as are many I don't share and I have expressed this before in replies to him, but only want to remark that this discussion was made several months ago and nothing, besides the trunk proposition from Andreas, survived. > As for movement, fixes, and overall progress: > board could decide what to do, but only if there is people willing to > do anything, or if there a two or more different views on same > problem. Maybe the board should try. Not imagine that won't be people willing to follow the goals proposed by the board. Until now the community has been waiting, giving the board what it asked, time, to see the results of the trunk effort. Maybe trying the other way can give other kind of results. The only thing to lose is time, and the community has already done this. > > Here my list: > - make it license clean > - make it modular Ok, this is something very good indeed. So, lets start the board's Squeak To do list with those two. > > these decision(s) made a couple of years ago, and we still stick with them. Well, a think that that isn't a very good argument in favor of squeak because anyone has been accomplished. Cheers -- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx |
Re: Squeak direction: Was: Re: Terms of Reference: discussion is open
|
|
In reply to this post by Edgar J. De Cleene
El jue, 05-11-2009 a las 17:47 -0300, Jecel Assumpcao Jr escribió:
> Edgar J. De Cleene wrote: > > On 11/5/09 4:27 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: > > > As for Keith's proposals: first time i heard about them not long ago > > > in IRC chat, and i reacted. > > > > Ha ha ha. > > > > Good joke ! > > Only Board member and qualified Squeaker who don't know ? > > > > I don't agree with Keith 98% of the time, but you can't said he don't try to > > discuss about the release process and how he think Squeak should be made. > > By "Keith's proposals" Igor meant the set of rules Keith suggested for > the board and teams recently on IRC, which Igor then brought to the > board for discussion and we have brought to squeak-dev. Igor was not > aware of previous attempts to define such rules even though Miguel said > this discussion was many months old. I don't said that. That's the reason for the change in the subject. I said that againg I see a neverending discussion about things that, although can be important indeed, just delay the changes, that the users want to see. Of course I agree that the terms are important and in extreme cases will be the sword that will solve problems, but in 90% of the cases it won't be (hopefully) invoked. While that is discussed, there is no real advance on squeak any different than before, when everyone walk in its own direction, just like the trunk commits show the personal itches being scratched by each commiter. > For one attempt to start this > discussion, see my post from February - > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2009-February/134 > 288.html > > -- Jecel > > Cheers -- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx |
Re: Squeak direction: Was: Re: Terms of Reference: discussion is open
|
|
2009/11/6 Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez <[hidden email]>:
> El jue, 05-11-2009 a las 17:47 -0300, Jecel Assumpcao Jr escribió: >> Edgar J. De Cleene wrote: >> > On 11/5/09 4:27 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: >> > > As for Keith's proposals: first time i heard about them not long ago >> > > in IRC chat, and i reacted. >> > >> > Ha ha ha. >> > >> > Good joke ! >> > Only Board member and qualified Squeaker who don't know ? >> > >> > I don't agree with Keith 98% of the time, but you can't said he don't try to >> > discuss about the release process and how he think Squeak should be made. >> >> By "Keith's proposals" Igor meant the set of rules Keith suggested for >> the board and teams recently on IRC, which Igor then brought to the >> board for discussion and we have brought to squeak-dev. Igor was not >> aware of previous attempts to define such rules even though Miguel said >> this discussion was many months old. > > I don't said that. That's the reason for the change in the subject. > I said that againg I see a neverending discussion about things that, > although can be important indeed, just delay the changes, that the users > want to see. > Why then, just not speak what changes you want to see? I want to see a lot of things. But i'm not sure that there many others who share my ideas. You know, its really hard to make eveyone happy :) > Of course I agree that the terms are important and in extreme cases will > be the sword that will solve problems, but in 90% of the cases it won't > be (hopefully) invoked. While that is discussed, there is no real > advance on squeak any different than before, when everyone walk in its > own direction, just like the trunk commits show the personal itches > being scratched by each commiter. > Well, i think its not someone's fault (including board) that everyone wants to go into own direction. Its a natural way of things. You think that board should define the direction and development plans? Okay. But then board becomes not just a bunch of people who serve for oversight, but more closer to technical issues. Then board should consist of people who developing squeak and make different technical decisions, but not a comitte which just sits and watching overall progress. But again, the problem is to find people who will stick with plan and dedicate own time getting there. Without such people, all decisions is just a puff of smoke. So, i want to ask, is there anyone, who willing to spend his spare time and continuously contribute, according to some plan? Or we left with only option to have a people who contributing only because of personal itches? Needless to say, i'm not satisfied with current state of art. > > >> For one attempt to start this >> discussion, see my post from February - >> >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2009-February/134 >> 288.html >> >> -- Jecel >> >> > > Cheers > > -- > Miguel Cobá > http://miguel.leugim.com.mx > > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. |
Re: Squeak direction: Was: Re: Terms of Reference: discussion is open
|
|
El vie, 06-11-2009 a las 01:24 +0200, Igor Stasenko escribió:
> Needless to say, i'm not satisfied with current state of art. It appears that everybody isn't satisfied but that changes nothing. I think that what the board lacks is a real leadership, not like the leadership we have seen, but a real leadership. One that can envision a glorious future One that can find the indispensable steps that lead to that glorious future. One that risk its popularity and sleeps thinking that the next day can be removed from the throne. One that risk lost part of the troops when following that glorious future. One that values the remaining troops as the ones having the same vision. Which one of these has the Squeak board? It doesn't have a glorious future envisioned for Squeak, that can be expressed in some clear text and not in vague words and statements. It can layout a list of basic steps to reach that goal. It tries to be good with everyone by not taking decisions that could upset some of them. Don't want to loose more troops to bad decisions but they are losing them because it can show them a path to follow. I don't know a lot of history, but it is very hard to believe that Alexander asked the troops if they wanted to go to conquer Asia or to continue to build their beautiful homes and finding new techniques of horse riding. So, the summary appears to me, is that there is no future yet for Squeak. Thanks for the answers -- Miguel Cobá http://miguel.leugim.com.mx |
Re: Squeak direction: Was: Re: Terms of Reference: discussion is open
|
|
Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez wrote:
> It doesn't have a glorious future envisioned for Squeak, that can be > expressed in some clear text and not in vague words and statements. > It can layout a list of basic steps to reach that goal. > It tries to be good with everyone by not taking decisions that could > upset some of them. I always find it interesting to see how the very same set of actions is seen completely differently by different people. For Keith, the board *way* overstepped its bounds, making decisions that it had no right to make and upsetting him terribly. For you, the same set of actions counts as being indecisive and trying to be good with everyone. Cheers, - Andreas |
Re: Squeak direction: Was: Re: Terms of Reference: discussion is open
|
|
In reply to this post by Miguel Cobá
2009/11/6 Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez <[hidden email]>:
> El vie, 06-11-2009 a las 01:24 +0200, Igor Stasenko escribió: > >> Needless to say, i'm not satisfied with current state of art. > > It appears that everybody isn't satisfied but that changes nothing. > > I think that what the board lacks is a real leadership, not like the > leadership we have seen, but a real leadership. > > One that can envision a glorious future > One that can find the indispensable steps that lead to that glorious > future. > One that risk its popularity and sleeps thinking that the next day can > be removed from the throne. > One that risk lost part of the troops when following that glorious > future. > One that values the remaining troops as the ones having the same vision. > > Which one of these has the Squeak board? > > It doesn't have a glorious future envisioned for Squeak, that can be > expressed in some clear text and not in vague words and statements. > It can layout a list of basic steps to reach that goal. > It tries to be good with everyone by not taking decisions that could > upset some of them. > Don't want to loose more troops to bad decisions but they are losing > them because it can show them a path to follow. > > I don't know a lot of history, but it is very hard to believe that > Alexander asked the troops if they wanted to go to conquer Asia or to > continue to build their beautiful homes and finding new techniques of > horse riding. > > So, the summary appears to me, is that there is no future yet for > Squeak. > But if we talking about glorified historical parallels, lets take a look on a few other persons to be more objective. Napoleon - tried to repeat the glorious deeds of the past, defeated and ended up dying alone on distant island. Hitler - wanted better, glorious future for Germans, and defeated by allies, who didn't shared his view. And at last one - Chengis Khan. One who built the most powerful empire and most biggest one in the history. But what is left from this empire? Culture - no. It was assimilated by different cultures. Architecture? No. We have a lot of architecture remnants from more distant past, but nothing worth mentioning from the glorious mongol empire. The only thing, which left is a memory about raging mongol cavalry, which was a most feared power in the middle ages world. And the stories about destruction and mass slaughter, when mongols defeating another country and sieze control of it. Yes, of course, we could wear the dictatorship crowns and start fighting with watermills, losing the troops. But i fear this doesnt makes our chances any better to become the glorious and successfull. > Thanks for the answers > -- > Miguel Cobá > http://miguel.leugim.com.mx > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. |
«
Return to Squeak - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |