[squeak-dev] Mondrian help

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
29 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[squeak-dev] Mondrian help

Raymond Asselin-3
I try to use Mondrian to analyse a small appl I'm working on...
I want to generate Uml like diagram on my appl..
It's working with MOUmlClass example: 'myPackage' .

My question:

In Mondrian how to eliminate easily the display of accessors method of
each class of my package.  In my code I did what follow to eliminate
the test-classes but don't know how to access methods categorised as
'accessing' ?

    "I want to strip all  classes used for tests, except a class named  
    XPTest that I want to be in the group'"
    exceptClass := theClasses select:[ :cl |  cl asString = 'XPTest'].
    theClasses := theClasses reject:[ :cl |  cl asString endsWith: 'Test'].
    theClasses := theClasses , exceptClass.
    "Now I want to eleminate all access methods "

Any help ?
Raymond

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[squeak-dev] Why the Board should have only seven seats ?

Edgar J. De Cleene

I have The CRC Card Book of by David Bellin and Susan Suchman Simone and
yes, many people could be difficult in meetings.

But as we was so few and work is too heavy, we could have more members this
year.

Any is against ? Why ?

Edgar




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [squeak-dev] Why the Board should have only seven seats ?

Bert Freudenberg

On 20.02.2009, at 02:09, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:

>
> I have The CRC Card Book of by David Bellin and Susan Suchman Simone  
> and
> yes, many people could be difficult in meetings.
>
> But as we was so few and work is too heavy, we could have more  
> members this
> year.

Which work specifically do you mean would benefit from being split  
amongst more people? IMHO the "work" mainly consists of communicating,  
and bringing more people in grows the number of communication paths  
exponentially.

> Any is against ?

Yes. When we discussed this today in the leadership meeting, the  
majority felt that 7 are quite enough, some even thought 5 would be  
sufficient.

> Why ?


We don't have to do the *actual* work ourselves (at least not in our  
elected role), our job is to facilitate or, if necessary, delegate.  
Speaking as someone serving for 3 years now I can say that reaching  
consensus with 7 is already hard, and more would make group meetings  
quite uncomfortable.

- Bert -



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[squeak-dev] Re: Why the Board should have only seven seats ?

Andreas.Raab
In reply to this post by Edgar J. De Cleene
Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
> I have The CRC Card Book of by David Bellin and Susan Suchman Simone and
> yes, many people could be difficult in meetings.
>
> But as we was so few and work is too heavy, we could have more members this
> year.
>
> Any is against ? Why ?

Organizational issues. Having too many people makes organizing meetings
across time zones a nightmare. Seven is already at the high mark and you
can see that most meetings are not fully attended. And once meetings
aren't fully attended you start the next meeting by repeating what
happened on the last. The larger the number of people the more you need
to repeat and often this ends up in having the same discussion that you
had in the previous meeting all over again.  Then there is finding
consensus. The fewer people involved the easier it usually is to get
consensus.

I find seven a good number because it is large enough that you can loose
two members without the board evaporating and it is just about the
largest number one can reasonably manage that way.

If we had less churn amongst the board members I would probably argue
for five instead of seven, mostly because that also gives the community
a way of making choices. But this is definitely not a good choice if the
dropout rate of the board is what it's been in the past.

So I'm in favor of sticking with seven for the time being.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Why the Board should have only seven seats ?

Randal L. Schwartz
>>>>> "Andreas" == Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> writes:

Andreas> If we had less churn amongst the board members I would probably argue
Andreas> for five instead of seven, mostly because that also gives the
Andreas> community a way of making choices. But this is definitely not a good
Andreas> choice if the dropout rate of the board is what it's been in the
Andreas> past.

I'd be a bit wary about 5.  There *are* tasks that come out of each meeting,
and spreading it out a bit has helped.

I'd also be a bit wary about 9.  It's tough enough finding an overlapping
consistent slot in the schedules of 7 busy people.  Nine would be frightening.
And one thing I know is that having everyone be at pretty much every live
meeting this year has been quite useful.

--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<[hidden email]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Why the Board should have only seven seats ?

Igor Stasenko
In reply to this post by Andreas.Raab
2009/2/20 Andreas Raab <[hidden email]>:

> Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
>>
>> I have The CRC Card Book of by David Bellin and Susan Suchman Simone and
>> yes, many people could be difficult in meetings.
>>
>> But as we was so few and work is too heavy, we could have more members
>> this
>> year.
>>
>> Any is against ? Why ?
>
> Organizational issues. Having too many people makes organizing meetings
> across time zones a nightmare. Seven is already at the high mark and you can
> see that most meetings are not fully attended. And once meetings aren't
> fully attended you start the next meeting by repeating what happened on the
> last. The larger the number of people the more you need to repeat and often
> this ends up in having the same discussion that you had in the previous
> meeting all over again.  Then there is finding consensus. The fewer people
> involved the easier it usually is to get consensus.
>
> I find seven a good number because it is large enough that you can loose two
> members without the board evaporating and it is just about the largest
> number one can reasonably manage that way.
>
> If we had less churn amongst the board members I would probably argue for
> five instead of seven, mostly because that also gives the community a way of
> making choices. But this is definitely not a good choice if the dropout rate
> of the board is what it's been in the past.
>
> So I'm in favor of sticking with seven for the time being.
>

+1
i don't see why Leadership team should grow in numbers.
Speaking about lack of manpower, i'd prefer to see more people in
other teams, who actually do the job.
Looking at current Leadership team, i can say, that we spent a little
attention on this.
I think that recruiting people to the teams, inspiring people to join,
should be one of the primary function of Leadership.
Without such people, Leadership is just a king without kingdom. And
what is the point in growing bureacracy then, when there is no one
left who want to work with it?

> Cheers,
>  - Andreas



--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Why the Board should have only seven seats ?

Edgar J. De Cleene



On 2/20/09 1:38 AM, "Igor Stasenko" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2009/2/20 Andreas Raab <[hidden email]>:
>> Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
>>>
>>> I have The CRC Card Book of by David Bellin and Susan Suchman Simone and
>>> yes, many people could be difficult in meetings.
>>>
>>> But as we was so few and work is too heavy, we could have more members
>>> this
>>> year.
>>>
>>> Any is against ? Why ?
>>
>> Organizational issues. Having too many people makes organizing meetings
>> across time zones a nightmare. Seven is already at the high mark and you can
>> see that most meetings are not fully attended. And once meetings aren't
>> fully attended you start the next meeting by repeating what happened on the
>> last. The larger the number of people the more you need to repeat and often
>> this ends up in having the same discussion that you had in the previous
>> meeting all over again.  Then there is finding consensus. The fewer people
>> involved the easier it usually is to get consensus.
>>
>> I find seven a good number because it is large enough that you can loose two
>> members without the board evaporating and it is just about the largest
>> number one can reasonably manage that way.
>>
>> If we had less churn amongst the board members I would probably argue for
>> five instead of seven, mostly because that also gives the community a way of
>> making choices. But this is definitely not a good choice if the dropout rate
>> of the board is what it's been in the past.
>>
>> So I'm in favor of sticking with seven for the time being.
>>
>
> +1
> i don't see why Leadership team should grow in numbers.
> Speaking about lack of manpower, i'd prefer to see more people in
> other teams, who actually do the job.
> Looking at current Leadership team, i can say, that we spent a little
> attention on this.
> I think that recruiting people to the teams, inspiring people to join,
> should be one of the primary function of Leadership.
> Without such people, Leadership is just a king without kingdom. And
> what is the point in growing bureacracy then, when there is no one
> left who want to work with it?
>
>> Cheers,
>>  - Andreas
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>

Ok
I see all read the book or think the same about this.

I repeat the same question here so all could see our opinions.

I also agree 7 is a fair number for all reasons expressed here.

Only I don't like the word Leaderships.

We don't need people follow us as they don't was sheeps.

We need run a enterprise as Apple , Disney, Sun, HP , etc.

So I like Board and all squeakers was our owners and bought "shares" of
Squeak Inc each time they download Squeak.

So the Board needs a CEO ?

Not me ...

I like Andreas as CEO

Edgar




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Why the Board should have only seven seats ?

Bert Freudenberg
On 20.02.2009, at 09:55, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
>
> Only I don't like the word Leaderships.

Me neither. "Board" has the longer tradition here, it's just not the  
"board of directors" anymore, which only applied when we were trying  
to create a separate Squeak Foundation.

Idea: I liked the term "Sugar Labs Oversight Board", and not only  
because of its acronym. Does anybody have a backronym for "SQUIBs"? ;)

> We don't need people follow us as they don't was sheeps.
>
> We need run a enterprise as Apple , Disney, Sun, HP , etc.

Sorry, are we talking about the same community?

> So I like Board and all squeakers was our owners and bought "shares"  
> of
> Squeak Inc each time they download Squeak.

Hehe. Not a bad thought :)

> So the Board needs a CEO ?


Don't think so, but in the past we usually chose a spokesperson for  
the board, and appointed single members for specific tasks (like for  
talking to the Software Freedom Conservancy).

- Bert -



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Why the Board should have only seven seats ?

Göran Krampe
Bert Freudenberg wrote:

> On 20.02.2009, at 09:55, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
>>
>> Only I don't like the word Leaderships.
>
> Me neither. "Board" has the longer tradition here, it's just not the
> "board of directors" anymore, which only applied when we were trying to
> create a separate Squeak Foundation.
>
> Idea: I liked the term "Sugar Labs Oversight Board", and not only
> because of its acronym. Does anybody have a backronym for "SQUIBs"? ;)

I don't like the "Leadership" word either (but since it is the
"official" name currently I try to use it).

But I think the SFC had something to do with us not using the word
"board", right?

regards, Göran


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [squeak-dev] Why the Board should have only seven seats ?

Mark Volkmann
In reply to this post by Edgar J. De Cleene
On Feb 19, 2009, at 7:09 PM, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:

> I have The CRC Card Book of by David Bellin and Susan Suchman Simone  
> and
> yes, many people could be difficult in meetings.
>
> But as we was so few and work is too heavy, we could have more  
> members this
> year.
>
> Any is against ? Why ?


There might be someone you really don't want to be on the board. If  
more than seven can be on it, the chances are good they will be  
elected even if you don't vote for them.

---
Mark Volkmann
http://www.ociweb.com/mark


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Why the Board should have only seven seats ?

Edgar J. De Cleene
In reply to this post by Göran Krampe



On 2/20/09 9:49 AM, "Göran Krampe" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> But I think the SFC had something to do with us not using the word
> "board", right?

Could expand ?

Edgar




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [squeak-dev] Why the Board should have only seven seats ?

Edgar J. De Cleene
In reply to this post by Mark Volkmann



On 2/20/09 9:57 AM, "Mark Volkmann" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> There might be someone you really don't want to be on the board. If
> more than seven can be on it, the chances are good they will be
> elected even if you don't vote for them.

Very good point

Sometimes I do odd questions for having good answers.
Sometimes I put myself in the opposite side (Advocatus Diaboli), but such
duty requires more faith.
Sometimes I act as Defensor del Pueblo (Ombusdman) trying to be the voice of
many working in silence.

And as some very good friend say, Edison do 20.000 crazy things before he
found the light bulb we are using today.

Edgar




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [squeak-dev] Why the Board should have only seven seats ?

Bert Freudenberg
In reply to this post by Mark Volkmann

On 20.02.2009, at 12:57, Mark Volkmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Feb 19, 2009, at 7:09 PM, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
>
>> I have The CRC Card Book of by David Bellin and Susan Suchman  
>> Simone and
>> yes, many people could be difficult in meetings.
>>
>> But as we was so few and work is too heavy, we could have more  
>> members this
>> year.
>>
>> Any is against ? Why ?
>
>
> There might be someone you really don't want to be on the board. If  
> more than seven can be on it, the chances are good they will be  
> elected even if you don't vote for them.

No, we have a "none" choice in the elections, and everybody who loses  
against that is not elected.

- Bert -

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[squeak-dev] Re: Why the Board should have only seven seats ?

Klaus D. Witzel
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:10:54 +0100, Bert Freudenberg wrote:

>
> On 20.02.2009, at 12:57, Mark Volkmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 19, 2009, at 7:09 PM, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
>>
>>> I have The CRC Card Book of by David Bellin and Susan Suchman Simone  
>>> and
>>> yes, many people could be difficult in meetings.
>>>
>>> But as we was so few and work is too heavy, we could have more members  
>>> this
>>> year.
>>>
>>> Any is against ? Why ?
>>
>>
>> There might be someone you really don't want to be on the board. If  
>> more than seven can be on it, the chances are good they will be elected  
>> even if you don't vote for them.
>
> No, we have a "none" choice in the elections, and everybody who loses  
> against that is not elected.

:) you're good with head-up these days ;)

> - Bert -

--
"If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it".  
Albert Einstein


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [squeak-dev] Why the Board should have only seven seats ?

Göran Krampe
In reply to this post by Bert Freudenberg
Bert Freudenberg wrote:

> On 20.02.2009, at 12:57, Mark Volkmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 2009, at 7:09 PM, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
>>> I have The CRC Card Book of by David Bellin and Susan Suchman Simone and
>>> yes, many people could be difficult in meetings.
>>>
>>> But as we was so few and work is too heavy, we could have more
>>> members this
>>> year.
>>>
>>> Any is against ? Why ?
>>
>>
>> There might be someone you really don't want to be on the board. If
>> more than seven can be on it, the chances are good they will be
>> elected even if you don't vote for them.
>
> No, we have a "none" choice in the elections, and everybody who loses
> against that is not elected.

Correct. Last year it was called "None Of The Above".

regards, Göran


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [squeak-dev] Why the Board should have only seven seats ?

Randal L. Schwartz
In reply to this post by Edgar J. De Cleene
>>>>> "Edgar" == Edgar J De Cleene <[hidden email]> writes:

Edgar> And as some very good friend say, Edison do 20.000 crazy things before
Edgar> he found the light bulb we are using today.

Except that it was actually Joseph Swan
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Swan) who invented the light bulb --
Edison merely took credit. :)

--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<[hidden email]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [squeak-dev] Why the Board should have only seven seats ?

Randal L. Schwartz
In reply to this post by Göran Krampe
>>>>> "Göran" == Göran Krampe <[hidden email]> writes:

Göran> Correct. Last year it was called "None Of The Above".

Oooh... This year, can it be Captain Dunsel
(http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Dunsel)?

:)

--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<[hidden email]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [squeak-dev] Why the Board should have only seven seats ?

keith1y
There has been much research upon this topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_Inefficiency

Keith

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [squeak-dev] Why the Board should have only seven seats ?

Bert Freudenberg
In reply to this post by Randal L. Schwartz

On 20.02.2009, at 13:26, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:

>>>>>> "Göran" == Göran Krampe <[hidden email]> writes:
>
> Göran> Correct. Last year it was called "None Of The Above".
>
> Oooh... This year, can it be Captain Dunsel
> (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Dunsel)?


If it made the purpose more clear, sure. I don't think it would.

I find the term "None Of The Above" rather incomprehensible, it seems  
to only make sense on a paper ballot. In the online voting system we  
used one would rank candidates that should *not* be on the board  
"below" that item.

But I do not have a better idea.

- Bert -



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Why the Board should have only seven seats ?

Bert Freudenberg
In reply to this post by Edgar J. De Cleene
On 20.02.2009, at 13:02, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:

> On 2/20/09 9:49 AM, "Göran Krampe" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> But I think the SFC had something to do with us not using the word
>> "board", right?
>
> Could expand ?


We are trying to join the SFC, which would handle the legal and  
financial issues, which is far simpler than incorporating on our own:

http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/

The SFC has a "board of directors". That is a fixed legal term and  
they asked us to not use it to refer to the community-elected  
representatives.

But if you look at the list of projects there is at least one (Sugar  
Labs) that has an "oversight board" so that term is apparently fine  
with the SFC.

- Bert -


12