a little more due process
Locked
12
12
 
|
On 17 February 2010 02:17, Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> wrote:
> keith wrote: >>> >>> With such an outrageous claim, can I ask you to either provide actual >>> evidence (quotes, logs, etc) which board members believe this to be a >>> dictatorship or, if you are unable to provide said evidence, retract your >>> false accusation? >> >> Your wish is my command. You may have been puzzled as to why I have been >> so vocal, I am only reacting against this kind of dictatorship talk. > > Is that all you got? A single quote from a single discussion on IRC? If > anything it goes to show that my dislike of IRC is well justified. The > inability to make a complete argument combined with public logs makes sure > that if you actually engage in discussion you're going to say certain things > that should be off-records; except they're not because it's in the logs. > > I *very* much doubt that Randal meant this sentence as a "It's a > dictatorship, damnit, get used to it!" but rather as a casual observation to > get a point across as one would in a casual conversation. I would disagree > even with that but I have no doubt that Randal used a bit of rhetoric to > emphasize the point that a decision must be made somewhere at times, and > that he's willing to take this responsibility (which I agree with but that's > a very long shot from calling it a dictatorship). Misinterpreting him in the > way you're doing is basically assuming bad faith on Randal's behalf. > > I don't use IRC precisely for the reason that it's not a medium to make a > concise argument; it's a discussion medium where thoughts flow freely and > the written argument shouldn't be recorded any more than when you have a > verbal conversation over lunch. > this is sooo obvious. i wonder, why you even explaining this. Chat is ultimately wrong place for serious discussions and refering to it as an 'official' source is just plain stupid. > Cheers, > - Andreas > >> >> Randal also blatantly said that "the end justifies the means". >> >> 16:57:33 <keithy> the whole point was to be philosophically inclusive >> 16:57:38 <keithy> otherwise squeak is dead >> 16:57:46 <keithy> trunk is not inclusive >> 16:58:07 <RandalSchwartz> at some point, it's a dictatorship. perhaps you >> never liked that. >> 16:58:07 <keithy> trunk is one fork >> 16:58:21 <keithy> it is not a dictatorship >> 16:58:25 <RandalSchwartz> the official fork, yes >> 16:58:30 <RandalSchwartz> what we call "Squeak" >> >> >> best regards >> >> Keith >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> > > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Randal L. Schwartz
Oh how I would have wished for endless discussions BEFORE making authoritarian decisions.
It is an "OVERSIGHT" board! That's why you need your terms of reference, to stop you acting like a government, you were not elected to govern but to oversee. You previously endorsed a release team to make governing decisions about the release. Putting the board in competition with the release team was a very dumb idea. Making decisions about the release without considering the release team or using the media chosen by the release team was also a bad idea. There were considered reasons why the release team was working the way it was, and you decided to ignore them all because you apparently "knew better". What utter arrogance. Keith |
|
|
In reply to this post by keith1y
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 08:41:22PM +0000, keith wrote:
> > I put 3 years into THIS goal with the board's approval, and you > scuppered me without a second thought because you were too impatient > to even email me to ask how far away a release would be, and now you > tell ME to be patient!!!! Hmm... I remember back when the alleged injustices were supposedly being perpetrated, I took a look at the archives of the release team mailing list. Big surprise - what Keith is saying is total nonsense. The board pinged the release team on several occasions with no apparent response. Nothing was getting delivered, no timeline was available, and there was no indication that another three years would not go by without any results. I also took a look at Keith's actual work as it related to bugs that I was personally familiar with on Mantis. Big surprise - things labeled as "fixes" that were not fixes, things tagged for inclusion in the mythical "new release" that could not possible work. Hmmm... this does not smell right. So from my point of view what I see is: - Lots of fancy talk about fictious deliverables - No actual deliverables - Excuses about why nothing gets done - Scapegoats who are at fault for the failure to deliver whatever it was that was almost ready to be finished real soon now if only people were enlightened enough to appreciate it - Sloppy work, full of errors, incomplete, undocumented In a word: bullshit. My comments are directed specifically towards Keith, and are not intended to reflect negatively on the actual 3.11 release team leader, who AFAIK has been consistently positive and constructive. Dave |
|
|
That is a complete lie that was made up by someone at the the time the rebuttal obviously got lost in the fray. There were no emails from any member of the board for 8 weeks. I was in irc and active almost every single day.
Not true, 1) The Bob image was downloadable in February and configured on a server. The changes to mantis to allow automated querying was performed a month or two later. LPF was delivered Sake/Packages was delivered Installer was delivered. 3.10.2-build was delivered (and 3.10.2-build was built using the process that was the deliverable) I also began producing videos to document the bob process which was (almost*) finished and was building developer images, amongst others. *almost - bob was configured to build, but not yet to test. It was a single method addition of a configuration. If you care to look at the proposal, the deliverable was that process which I was video-documenting two days before Andreas announced a new process!
The timeline was available, I was making the videos to document the process and less than a week of effort was needed to configure bob to run the tests against the images bob was already building.
No liaison form the board to ask what progress actually was.
We had an offline script which listed a over 100 fixes for inclusion in the next release. 3.10.2 had an additional 17 fixes in it for a start. Once the process was complete, and remember the process was the deliverable. Then work would be able to progress making mantis reflect what we wanted in each subsequent monthly iteration. No effort had been made to set the statuses on mantis because a) the process was being documented to explain to people what needed doing and b) the deliverable was the process, and an image to demonstrate that process. It only needed a token number of fixes on the first iteration, and the 100 we already had was plenty for an alpha.
Did you download the bob image, or the build image? Did you load Sake/Tasks?
Look at the proposal, the deliverable was the process. Apart from the testing configuration for bob it was complete. Bob even has a seaside gui. The release image that the proposal said we would deliver was merely to be a demonstration of the process. That demonstration had already been delivered with 3.10.2-build and 3.10.2-lpf images.
Nothing, meaning, features like LPF and Installer in use by several people in the community for actual commercial projects. In my case you can add Sake/Packages, and bob to that list too.
The board who decides to make decisions in one sitting without asking people it effects.
Actually the process was finished already. It just needed to be used. I.e. it needed someone to choose the fixes in mantis and hit the build button.
You betcha. You could have this point if it were not for one glaring fact. Some people did appreciate it and did understand it, and they continue to appreciate it and continue to understand it. The fact that they took the time to do so, and you didnt, is an indictment on you not them or me.
I thank you for your support, and encouragement, it must have been there somewhere but I missed it. You volunteered to help when exactly?
Your comments are typically misinformed and similarly insulting, Keith |
|
|
In reply to this post by David T. Lewis
At 10:47 PM -0500 2/16/10, David T. Lewis apparently wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 08:41:22PM +0000, keith wrote: >> >> I put 3 years into THIS goal with the board's approval, and you >> scuppered me without a second thought because you were too impatient >> to even email me to ask how far away a release would be, and now you >> tell ME to be patient!!!! > >Hmm... I remember back when the alleged injustices were supposedly being >perpetrated, I took a look at the archives of the release team mailing >list. Big surprise - what Keith is saying is total nonsense. The board >pinged the release team on several occasions with no apparent response. >Nothing was getting delivered, no timeline was available, and there was >no indication that another three years would not go by without any >results. > >I also took a look at Keith's actual work as it related to bugs that >I was personally familiar with on Mantis. Big surprise - things labeled >as "fixes" that were not fixes, things tagged for inclusion in the >mythical "new release" that could not possible work. Hmmm... this does >not smell right. > >So from my point of view what I see is: > - Lots of fancy talk about fictious deliverables > - No actual deliverables > - Excuses about why nothing gets done > - Scapegoats who are at fault for the failure to deliver whatever it > was that was almost ready to be finished real soon now if only people > were enlightened enough to appreciate it > - Sloppy work, full of errors, incomplete, undocumented > >In a word: bullshit. > >My comments are directed specifically towards Keith, and are not intended >to reflect negatively on the actual 3.11 release team leader, who AFAIK >has been consistently positive and constructive. > >Dave It is apparent to me that you have no real understanding of what Keith has been talking about and have made no effort in that regard. Ken G. Brown |
|
|
In reply to this post by David T. Lewis
On 17 February 2010 07:37, Ken G. Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:
> At 10:47 PM -0500 2/16/10, David T. Lewis apparently wrote: >>On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 08:41:22PM +0000, keith wrote: >>> >>> I put 3 years into THIS goal with the board's approval, and you >>> scuppered me without a second thought because you were too impatient >>> to even email me to ask how far away a release would be, and now you >>> tell ME to be patient!!!! >> >>Hmm... I remember back when the alleged injustices were supposedly being >>perpetrated, I took a look at the archives of the release team mailing >>list. Big surprise - what Keith is saying is total nonsense. The board >>pinged the release team on several occasions with no apparent response. >>Nothing was getting delivered, no timeline was available, and there was >>no indication that another three years would not go by without any >>results. >> >>I also took a look at Keith's actual work as it related to bugs that >>I was personally familiar with on Mantis. Big surprise - things labeled >>as "fixes" that were not fixes, things tagged for inclusion in the >>mythical "new release" that could not possible work. Hmmm... this does >>not smell right. >> >>So from my point of view what I see is: >> - Lots of fancy talk about fictious deliverables >> - No actual deliverables >> - Excuses about why nothing gets done >> - Scapegoats who are at fault for the failure to deliver whatever it >> was that was almost ready to be finished real soon now if only people >> were enlightened enough to appreciate it >> - Sloppy work, full of errors, incomplete, undocumented >> >>In a word: bullshit. >> >>My comments are directed specifically towards Keith, and are not intended >>to reflect negatively on the actual 3.11 release team leader, who AFAIK >>has been consistently positive and constructive. >> >>Dave > > It is apparent to me that you have no real understanding of what Keith has been talking about and have made no effort in that regard. > And so, many others. Most people don't care about things which not in closest circle of their interest. In this situation, it is not a wonder , that there are few people who understanding what Keith says. Giving people a working solution would be much better choice, rather than repeating oneself again and again in a long and fluent emails, which nobody reads. > Ken G. Brown > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. |
|
|
In reply to this post by keith1y
keith wrote:
> There were no emails from any member of the board for 8 weeks. That's not exactly true. Please revisit your inbox. You will find a series of messages, on April 21st and around May 5th, with the subject "3.11 status". I pinged Matthew (the release team leader) again around June 16/17. The nature of our conversation was such that I didn't feel broadening the scope after the initial ping and consequently you weren't privy to this discussion since Matthew chose not to broaden it either. However, in some later response I even pointed out to him that "we (the board) would like to talk to Keith first to make sure we're all in agreement on the way forward". That we didn't end up communicating with you after all was mostly because when the discussion suddenly came up that ended in the trunk development model, I felt that this was too good an opportunity to miss (i.e., people were clearly expressing their concerns and wanted to move on). And you hadn't been active on either mailing list and not responded to any of the messages I'd sent in the past and completely ignored this particular discussion on Squeak-dev so that I felt you'd basically gone AWOL. That's the part I truly apologize for, for not having taken the time to find out what's up with you and your work and to get your feedback at that point (plus I obviously didn't expect the kind of reaction in return since I had expected Matthew to be a reflection of the entire release team's feelings). However, the general claim that there was no conversation between the board and the release teams for eight weeks is wrong. There was ongoing conversation all driven by me. (I'd be happy to share this conversation to prove my point but I consider such conversations private and only share it publicly with explicit permission which means both you and Matthew) >> no indication that another three years would not go by without any >> results. > > No liaison form the board to ask what progress actually was. I did. I've asked several times. First, on the release team list (in April), then with direct messages to you and Matthew (in April and May) and finally to Matthew as a follow-up on the previous conversation in mid June. Cheers, - Andreas |
|
|
I got that number by looking at my inbox. Keith |
|
|
In reply to this post by Andreas.Raab
The fact remains that the first I had ever heard of the trunk
development model was the day you released it.Secondly I was actively working every day up until that point, I even posted publically viewable videos in the days prior to your announcement. All work that has been wasted. If I had had a wiff of the idea I would have told you from the start that it is fundamentally flawed and contrary to everything previously discussed. I say again - we do not want another squeak fork. We already had a repository squeaksource/311 and a means to make contributions via monticello. You would submit a monticello package with only your changes in it, and we have a script that flattens that change into the image just as if it were a changeset. I just imagine the pains you have behind the scenes to mangle difficult changes through your updates system. Keith |
|
|
keith wrote:
> I just imagine the pains you have behind the scenes to mangle difficult > changes through your updates system. But Keith, that's *my* pain not yours and I'm not asking you to share it. If you push your contribution into the inbox, I'll find a way of loading it. If you push your contribution to Mantis, I'll find a way of loading it. If you provide it as an update to Cuis I'll find a way of loading it. You don't have to do that if you don't feel comfortable. I can help. I've done this several times, including the closure bootstrap and compiled method trailers. It could be done for MC 1.5/1.6 as well once they're ready and pass the acid test of being able to go through and load all the updates that have been published so far. Cheers, - Andreas |
|
|
In reply to this post by keith1y
keith wrote:
>>> There were no emails from any member of the board for 8 weeks. > > I got that number by looking at my inbox. Yes, it is correct that the board didn't communicate with you for eight weeks. However, there was communication between me (the board liaison) and Matthew (the release team leader) during this period regarding 3.11 status and progress. I excluded you initially because you didn't seem interested in these discussion (you hadn't responded at all in the prior exchange) and later on it felt inappropriate. Cheers, - Andreas |
|
|
> regarding 3.11 status and progress. I excluded you initially because
> you didn't seem interested in these discussion > (you hadn't responded at all in the prior exchange) and later on it > felt inappropriate. I had already said I didn't want to talk on squeak-dev which you ignored. Secondly I was active in irc which other members of the board plainly saw since Ken and I had been working on Mantis stuff. I didn't respond to your April messages because I was a) busy trying to save another paid project from being cancelled, which was cancelled. b) busy actually working to deliver stuff so that you would see what you could contribute to and putting a gui on bob. c) you had already demonstrated you weren't interested in listening to me or actually contributing since all you seemed bothered about was renaming 3.10.2-build into 3.11-alpha. d) a lot happens in 8 weeks Keith |
|
|
In reply to this post by Andreas.Raab
You have the fork it is in your control. I have no guarantees that if I put time and effort into something you wont just reject it out of hand, it has happened before. I have no further guarantees that you will not just take the idea and implement it yourself ignoring the existing implementation this too has happened before several times. Therefore I cannot justify that time investment, you are not a safe bet for anyone thinking about making a significant contribution. Secondly, been there seen that got the t-shirt. So you load it, and then I loose control you don't track my latest and I have to end up supporting my old code ad-infinitum. The 3.10 team loaded a version of Installer once, and then didnt bother to upgrade it to the latest despite requests. They then made a release with an ancient version and I had to support it. The auto-build process would load the latest of everything all the time and make a monthly/bi-monthly release. Thirdly, you will immediately say its not up to scratch or it breaks, and will just say I am not loading that it is not ready. There is no place or process for collaborating to work on something in place until it is ready. i.e. there is no "unstable" breakable branch in which the wider community can collaborate on significant stuff within the kernel.
I still don't think that you understand. My main contribution was a process that allows one (or a group) to develop stuff outside of the image and maintain control, the very concept of passing it over for you to integrate manually is an anathema to me, because then I will have to repeatedly get the latest trunk image, and manually re-verse engineer what you have done to get it back out again so that I can work on it again back in my own working images. If trunk was built on the same fixed point release as my own working images then this wouldn't be a problem, but I am blowed if I am going to run around tracking every fork's integration of my contribution continuously, and then if a further update is needed campaign to have each fork maintainer be willing to re-integrate the next update all over again. You will be able to take my changes out of cuis, because I will be working relative to a fixed point release of Cuis. You however are unable to offer me the reciprocal courtesy of making your fixes easy to load for me. This is the problem with trunk, it is a one way street and you are the diode.
Yep it went in but it wont come out. Juan has baulked at redoing your trailers efforts for cuis, and edgar has baulked at redoing your closures efforts for "3.10-Minimal". So the direction of movement of trunk is by default one way, gravitating away from the existing code bases there is nothing fundamentally, either technically or philosophically working to draw forks closer together through actual code exchange. Watch this space, System-Exports for Cuis is released in about an hour or so.
Your process has no place for working on unstable stuff, and I don't have the time to fix MC1.5, so it gets thrown away... this it the whole point of having a process which is "inclusive of everyone's contributions" not just the perfect stuff that passes "your acid test". Keith
|
«
Return to Squeak - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |