[squeak-dev] [Election] Nomination period ends in 3 days!

> I imagine verbiage to the effect of
>
>         "Squeak is a vibrant and expanding open-source community with
>     many members.  It has great ways to participate, in existying
>     projects, in fixing bugs, in exploring blue-sky and in evolving the
>     system both as a platform and as the future of computing.  Here's
>     (i.e. some link) a great overview of the community.  Even if you're
>     not ready to get involved now you probably will some time soon; this
>     is a great place to be.  So if not now, please remember this and
>     visit the overview some time when you're interested in getting more
>     involved."
>
> would be suitably welcoming.  But text to this effect needs to be front
> and centre, not hidden off side pages.  Further, the overview needs to
> be well-written, well-structured, concise, informative and up-to-date.
>  If we put effort into this I think there will be significant benefits,
> in rates and degrees of involvement, in reduction of conflict, and in
> enabling a more effective debate about evolving community structure and
> process.  In short more happy lads and lasses and more Squeak.

> OK, actually the more I wrote the more I began to sense that might be
> the case.  But that still brings me back to the question:  Why would the
> project proposers want to do this?
>
> I think this is an easy sell to the consumers, the Squeakers who are the
> potential users and beneficiaries of a project.  More information
> earlier is always a good thing.  But how is this sold to the producers,
> the ones doing the work?  What is the upside for them?
>
> Ken
>
> On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 13:34 -0800, Andreas Raab wrote:
>> Hi Ken -
>>
>> Sorry for being unclear. I absolutely agree with your point about people
>> doing their projects until they feel it's ready. As a matter of fact I
>> think that pretty much all BPPs should be about stuff that's ready to go
>> (see my example which already pointed to the code). I do not want empty
>> upfront commitments; I want to be able to have the board make decisions
>> about concrete work that is there and available to look at.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>    - Andreas
>>
>

> What it does is that it gives people a process to work with. You will get a
> yes/no answer within a bounded time frame. The commitments that come with an
> approval are clear. You know what the expectations are. Etc.
>
> Remember my main goal here is to re-enable the ability for people to
> contribute both small and large. If you think the current situation is fine
> as it is, this proposal may not be for you. It is for people who don't think
> the current situation is desirable.
>
> There are almost certainly other ways by which to achieve the goal. I have
> simply formulated one that I think could work. If you have alternative
> ideas, I'm all for hearing them. My main goals for the process were to:
> * have a decision point, a yes/no answer,
> * have a schedule that can be tracked externally,
> * have clarity about who has commit rights to what,
> * have a way of getting out of it when things turn bad.
>
> As long as these points are addressed I'm pretty much good with whatever.
>
> Cheers,
>  - Andreas
>
> Ken Causey wrote:
>>
>> OK, actually the more I wrote the more I began to sense that might be
>> the case.  But that still brings me back to the question:  Why would the
>> project proposers want to do this?
>>
>> I think this is an easy sell to the consumers, the Squeakers who are the
>> potential users and beneficiaries of a project.  More information
>> earlier is always a good thing.  But how is this sold to the producers,
>> the ones doing the work?  What is the upside for them?
>>
>> Ken
>>
>> On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 13:34 -0800, Andreas Raab wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Ken -
>>>
>>> Sorry for being unclear. I absolutely agree with your point about people
>>> doing their projects until they feel it's ready. As a matter of fact I think
>>> that pretty much all BPPs should be about stuff that's ready to go (see my
>>> example which already pointed to the code). I do not want empty upfront
>>> commitments; I want to be able to have the board make decisions about
>>> concrete work that is there and available to look at.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>   - Andreas
>>>
>>
>
>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:squeak-dev-
> [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Göran Krampe
> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 7:29 AM
> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] [Election] I want to vote
>
> Yoshiki Ohshima wrote:
> >   Just looking at the wiki page, it wasn't clear to me that when the
> > voter list will be finalized/closed.  I'd imagine the case where
> > somebody assumes he is on the list but isn't and notice it after March
> > 1st.  (Or simply notice this is going on after March 1st.)
> >
> >   Is the plan to allow such new voters between 1st and 8th also?
>
> Good question. Technically it would not be a problem - but I am not sure
> about the other aspects - any views? Off the top of my head I don't
> remember how we did that last year.
>
> regards, Göran
>