Towards 3.9.1 . Away from What?

 Towards 3.9.1 . Away from What?

Hi Keith,

Thanks for your reply.

>  Keith Hodges keith_hodges at yahoo.co.uk
>  Mon May 7 01:34:35 UTC 2007

>  
>  >
>  > Towards 3.9.1 . Away from What?
>  >
>  > I watch all of Keith's efforts with wonder and
some
>  > trepidation.
>  >
>  >  
>  wonder I like!

Your welcome. You have earned it.

>  > He has very bold plans and when kept after (by
others)
>  > may do an reasonable job of coding.
>  >
>  > He is also off acting on his own on what he
thinks is
>  > needed.
>  >  
>  Not really true, someone said 3.10 is about
process,
>  not features. The
>  'process' element of 3.10 has had no discussion,
>  specification or
>  roadmapping! 3.10 Itself has been progressing under
>  Edgars 'expert, but
>  manual' direction, which I have been monitoring and
>  supporting.

Cool.

< some stuff clipped here to keep the topic on
protocol>

>  > I see what he is doing as undermining the efforts
of
>  > the 3.10 team.  And I wonder why this is.
>  >
>  >  
>  Undermining 3.10?

I didn't say you were not contributing. I merely
stated a personal perception.
As simon pointed out the question pertains as much to
the perception as to the undermining.

<snip>
>  > Is the November revolution happening in May?
>  >
>  >  
>  What november revolution, is there a plan?

Sorry. Squeak lore. Search the squeak-dev archives for
the folklore.
For a while gokr was fond of them.
>  
>  When did 3.8.1 come out? Just after 3.9 if I
recall. I
>  might be wrong
>  about that though.

3.8.1 is a branch owned and maintained by squeakland
folk AFAIK.
Some changes from it were folded back into 3.9. The
point is it has an offical entity that maintains it.

>  > What he is proposing is creating a branch of
Squeak
>  > under his release control and to his taste.
>  >
>  >  
>  Actually I have been talking with Stephane all
along
>  about all sorts of
>  aspects of this process. Stephane has held back, in
>  order to let 3.10
>  roll. But if he would like to take the opportunity
to
>  help put some
>  icing on his 3.9 cake then why not.

Steph is part of the board. And he is not the whole
board.
Something offical should be said about your efforts
and formalities should be observered if necessary.

>  > He is appropriating the version number 3.9.1.
Which
>  > portrays an intention for his release to be a
>  > successor to 3.9 but close to it.
>  >
>  > Now I question whether an independent developer
of
>  > relatively short standing in the squeak community
>  > should have the right to give an official
sounding
>  > designation to his release.
>  >
>  >  
>  Question away: the way I see it is I have no more
or
>  less right than
>  anyone else, until someone objects and it goes
>  political, or someone
>  else has a better idea.
>  > Shouldn't the version numbers of squeak belong to
the
>  > squeak foundation and squeak board?
>  > In other words it comes close to trademark
>  > infringement.
>  >  
>  Read the website it says, "This is the site for
>  collaborating on the
>  specification for 3.9.1 (Pending objections, this
is
>  the de-facto 3.9.1,
>  the future of squeak 3.9)"
>  
>  First, please note the word COLLABORATING, its not
>  about what I want in
>  3.9.1. It is and always has been something I have
>  attempted to
>  facilitate the community to engage in. The fact
that
>  few others have
>  actually engaged in it, (and I have invited them)
is
>  not my fault, nor
>  does it make me a loner at heart, just a loner by
>  default.
>  
>  The "Essential Fixes" page are some of what I need
to
>  support this
>  process that is used to generate 3.9.1 itself from
this
>  website.
>  
>  You may think I am being rather forward in saying
"this
>  is the de-facto
>  3.9.1", but this bug fixed version has been sitting
on
>  that website for
>  2/3 months now and nothing has been happening to
make
>  it happen. It
>  needs eaither a) Someone to push it through, to do
it
>  and make it
>  official, or b) Somone to object and can the idea
>  altogether so that it
>  becomes a mini-fork.

Yes, Exactly.

I left both options open in the
>  above statement. I
>  am being more forward now to provike action one way
or
>  the other.
>  
>  So far we have a) Stephane and b) Jerome
>  > Keith has the power to do what he will.  But
calling
>  > it 3.9.1 implies a blessing for his actions that
he
>  > has not formally asked for nor formally received.
Some
>  >  
>  I have never called it 3.9.1 without adding a
caveat
>  "proposed" ,
>  "experimental", or "unofficial"
>  > controls should be put on what he calls it less
his
>  > efforts be taken (by those outside) as authorized
and
>  > encourgaged by the offical board.
>  >
>  > Or he should be given that authorization by the
board
>  > to go ahead.  Right now the situation is like
having a
>  > loose cannon aboard a ship.  And people should
look at
>  > it in that manner.
>  >  
>  I find that insulting actually.

Emails may seem to more insulting than they were
intended.
My intention is to provoke to board to action so that
the status of things become clear.

You are not the situation you are Keith. I know the
difference. :-)

The name and whether it is wise for the community to
let you use it is what needs to be tied down.
I don't make that judgement. I just point out that one
is needed.

My perception is clouded by distance and ignorance and
I may be wrong about the loose cannon. Still when one
percieves something like that it is best to act before
its proven correct or not.

>  
>  The fact is that I dont have a project I am working
on
>  or any hidden
>  agenda. I am aiming to serve the squeak community
by
>  developing some
>  stuff that is needed.
>  
>  In general I am an initiating, ideas sort of
person,
>  and I value and
>  need support from finishing, relentless checking
type
>  of people such as
>  yourself.
>  
>  It would be helpful if those finishing relentless
>  checking, dotting i's
>  and crossing t's sort of people contributed to
helping
>  me where I am
>  weak, rather than shooting me down.

It would be helpful if initiating, ideas sort of
people slowed down long enough to check and finish
what they initiate. Self funded time of others must be
used considerately.

Thanks for the stimulating reply.

Yours in curiosity and service, --Jerome Peace (Bug
Tracker)

P.S. If your talking to Steph you are deeply involved
in the politics. :-) Cheers, -Jer



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Dear Jerome
> Steph is part of the board. And he is not the whole
> board.
>  
I have discussed technical issues with Steph on occassion, rather than
as a representative of the board. I have not asked for this "blessing", for two reasons, the first is
basically lack of confidence. The second is that due to personal
circumstances I am unable to commit to anything. I may be called away at
short notice to other more important matters. Squeaking is my own
excercise in non-mindless escapism, in my otherwise stressful life.
Another factor was the total unreliability of my computer equipment (now
resolved) which might have removed me from the net at a moments notice.
For these reasons I dont feel able to commit to any official anything.

My solution to this is to put my ideas up in an open way on a website,
and if someone cares to handle that part which I cant and officialise it
then great. Hopefully that explains my modus operandi.

Unfortunately nothing like this happened, no one official has said, this
is what we need, and the board appear to be purposfully low key. Someone
could have said something in the last 3 months, I have refered to
"unofficial 3.9.1" for a while now.

Looking at "the procedure", I wonder how many bugs are actually known
and fixed without being mentioned on mantis at all!
I apologize for mis-understanding you, I was very tired after a long
hard-labour shift and missed the subtlety in your wording.

> The name and whether it is wise for the community to
> let you use it is what needs to be tied down.
> I don't make that judgement. I just point out that one
> is needed.
>
>  
answered in the following email.
> It would be helpful if initiating, ideas sort of
> people slowed down long enough to check and finish
> what they initiate. Self funded time of others must be
> used considerately.
>
>  

Appreciated.
 
best regards

Keith

> ...no one official has said, this is what we need, and the board
> appear to be purposfully low key.

     That's the release team's job; they get to make those decisions,
subject to the approval of the board. If they're not doing a good job,
then we should fix that.


-C

--
Craig Latta
improvisational musical informaticist
www.netjam.org
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]