[squeak-dev] re: the Teams page (was "Producing alpha images")
Locked
[squeak-dev] re: the Teams page (was "Producing alpha images")
 
|
Hi-- Andreas writes: > 3.11 has lost *all* visibility to me. I didn't know whether it had > even started because there was nothing on the server, there were no > announcements on this list, so how would people know? Göran responds: > IMHO this has more to do with our current board and its lack of... > communication. It's been quite a while since you've said anything to me on the #squeak channel on IRC, and I'm there most days. Given your current comments, this seems odd to me. While I can't always read all of squeak-dev every day, I do watch the meetings notes threads for responses. I haven't seen any for several cycles. I encourage everyone to let loose there. :) I also look forward to when we have a tenable way for people to send meeting agenda item suggestions to us. > Sure, I just skimmed meeting notes posted... Indeed, the meeting notes are the primary way we communicate with the community. They exist because, currently, I seem to be the only one who can spare the time to write them. Even sparing that time is nontrivial, so if someone would like to volunteer to make them more prominent, please contact me. I encourage anyone who chooses to spend significant time complaining to consider spending at least some of that time being on the leadership team instead. > ...and AFAICT there was a motion back in july: > > "Motion: Spoon will be basis of a R4 and 3.x will continue as planned > in 3.11 proposal as long as people want to maintain it. (Passed > unanimously) " > > ...but I can't say that the community is very AWARE of this and what > it means. So either the team is to "blame" for not speaking up or the > board is to blame for not showing the official support. The 3.11 team has the full support of the leadership team. The leadership team's understanding is that the 3.11 team (like all teams) would take responsibility for their task and its visibility. The primary task of the leadership team is to delegate. Again, those who prefer a different mandate for the leadership team should run for election. > Let me also YET AGAIN point to the team table on squeak.org: > > http://www.squeak.org/Community/Teams/ > > ... > > It seems I have pointed this out a THOUSAND times and nothing is > happening. The last time you said nothing was happening, I sat with you live on IRC and edited that table until you said you were satisfied with it. Apparently you misspoke, or I misunderstood you to be satisfied. Regardless, something did happen, and it is false to say that nothing happened. A few minutes ago I tried to login to edit that page, and the credentials I used before didn't work; I've asked Janko for new ones. If you are willing to point something out a thousand times, perhaps you might be willing to point it out nine hundred and ninety-nine times and then volunteer to do it yourself. > If the board totally ignores this table then for god sake - > delete it. Göran, you know full well that I am the person responsible for that table. Why you choose to get upset, let months go by while being upset, and then post heated tirades here rather than contact me directly about it at some point during those months is quite beyond me. thanks, -C -- Craig Latta improvisational musical informaticist www.netjam.org Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)] |
[squeak-dev] Re: the Teams page (was "Producing alpha images")
|
|
Hi!
(Hmmm, odd, this email had a gmane address and not squeak-dev...) Sorry for the longish reply but hey: Craig Latta wrote: > Hi-- > > Andreas writes: > > > 3.11 has lost *all* visibility to me. I didn't know whether it had > > even started because there was nothing on the server, there were no > > announcements on this list, so how would people know? > > Göran responds: > > > IMHO this has more to do with our current board and its lack of... > > communication. > > It's been quite a while since you've said anything to me on the > #squeak channel on IRC, and I'm there most days. Given your current > comments, this seems odd to me. I am mainly referring to "official" communication, which means squeak-dev in my book. > While I can't always read all of squeak-dev every day, I do watch > the meetings notes threads for responses. I haven't seen any for several > cycles. I encourage everyone to let loose there. :) I also look forward > to when we have a tenable way for people to send meeting agenda item > suggestions to us. I have had much less time than usual to discuss/track things. Otherwise I might have commented on this fact earlier. > > Sure, I just skimmed meeting notes posted... > > Indeed, the meeting notes are the primary way we communicate with > the community. They exist because, currently, I seem to be the only one > who can spare the time to write them. Even sparing that time is > nontrivial, so if someone would like to volunteer to make them more > prominent, please contact me. I encourage anyone who chooses to spend > significant time complaining to consider spending at least some of that > time being on the leadership team instead. Hehe, well, I do think I am pulling my share in this community anyway and also do think we who are not on the board are allowed to "complain". :). And yes, I have considered it. > > ...and AFAICT there was a motion back in july: > > > > "Motion: Spoon will be basis of a R4 and 3.x will continue as planned > > in 3.11 proposal as long as people want to maintain it. (Passed > > unanimously) " > > > > ...but I can't say that the community is very AWARE of this and what > > it means. So either the team is to "blame" for not speaking up or the > > board is to blame for not showing the official support. > > The 3.11 team has the full support of the leadership team. The > leadership team's understanding is that the 3.11 team (like all teams) > would take responsibility for their task and its visibility. The primary > task of the leadership team is to delegate. Again, those who prefer a > different mandate for the leadership team should run for election. I would gladly have seen some kind of ANN to this effect and not just a a few fuzzy lines hidden in meeting notes. I mean, we are talking about an *assigned Team for the next release*! Kinda important don't you think? But considering the above being an official standpoint I will from now on pester the 3.11 team instead about *its* visibility. :) > > Let me also YET AGAIN point to the team table on squeak.org: > > > > http://www.squeak.org/Community/Teams/ > > > > ... > > > > It seems I have pointed this out a THOUSAND times and nothing is > > happening. > > The last time you said nothing was happening, I sat with you live > on IRC and edited that table until you said you were satisfied with it. I can't imagine having said that I am "satisfied with it", see below where I dug out the probable event from IRC logs. > Apparently you misspoke, or I misunderstood you to be satisfied. What has my satisfaction to do with total errors in the table anyway? AFAIK that discussion centered around the *Team model*, although errors in the table was also discussed. And you made some changes which I didn't think were good but at least you took a stand and made it reflect what you think and not what I thought when I wrote it originally. Fine. > Regardless, something did happen, and it is false to say that nothing > happened. I am not sure something "did happen" with the actual table, or did it? > A few minutes ago I tried to login to edit that page, and the > credentials I used before didn't work; I've asked Janko for new ones. > > If you are willing to point something out a thousand times, perhaps > you might be willing to point it out nine hundred and ninety-nine times > and then volunteer to do it yourself. Why should I volunteer to maintain a table that is meant to be maintained by the board? > > If the board totally ignores this table then for god sake - > > delete it. > > Göran, you know full well that I am the person responsible for that > table. Why you choose to get upset, let months go by while being upset, > and then post heated tirades here rather than contact me directly about > it at some point during those months is quite beyond me. I haven't been upset for months! That would be crazy. I was writing a post and ended up looking at the table once again (haven't looked in... probably months) and just realized it was *just as obsolete* as it was before. Now, sure, I could have emailed the board or whatever in private - but what is the point? It doesn't seem to make any difference pointing it out on IRC so why would it be different using email? Yes, I *am* slightly upset because it doesn't seem that you guys (the board) care! You can not calim you care and then have all these errors... ok, let's see... there are 16 rows and of those 16 I can easily spot: - 7 rows with coordinators that are not on the board anymore! - No 3.11 team nor 4.0 team listed! - About 5 teams (and probably more) that I think are dead in one way or the other (please correct me if I am wrong): -- Documentation Team -- I/O Stewards -- Modules -- Packages -- Toolbuilder - A v3.9 team listed (eh, where did 3.10 go?) which AFAIK definitely is not active anymore, Stephane is hardly active in that team, right? - The Election team that *I* am teamleader for these days is not updated to that effect either. ;) And probably lots of other errors. And oh, a little search found our previous discussion about this page on IRC I believe: http://tunes.org/~nef//logs/squeak/08.05.19 ...so that was back in may? Please note: - Both the Morphic team and the Documentation team was clearly mentioned as being deprecated during that discussion (just read it) but evidently you did not update the table to that effect. - AFAIK we talked mainly about the Team *model*, and yes, you made changes which I didn't like. Me being satisfied? No. But sure, now it reflects what you think at least. ...or do you refer to a later IRC session? I can't find any. regards, Göran |
Re: [squeak-dev] Re: the Teams page
|
|
Hi guys,
Teams page is now refreshed, or better said, back to the state it was after we jointly edited it in August but it was later lost in one of those server crashes. Old SmallWiki namely required the manual image snapshot for saving the changes, which as a fresh team leader of course forgot. Luckily I managed to still found pages from Google cache. From this cache I today reconstructed Teams page, so that now we can continue this debate on current http://www.squeak.org/Community/Teams/ Best regards Janko Göran Krampe wrote: > Hi! > > (Hmmm, odd, this email had a gmane address and not squeak-dev...) > > Sorry for the longish reply but hey: > > Craig Latta wrote: >> Hi-- >> >> Andreas writes: >> >> > 3.11 has lost *all* visibility to me. I didn't know whether it had >> > even started because there was nothing on the server, there were no >> > announcements on this list, so how would people know? >> >> Göran responds: >> >> > IMHO this has more to do with our current board and its lack of... >> > communication. >> >> It's been quite a while since you've said anything to me on the >> #squeak channel on IRC, and I'm there most days. Given your current >> comments, this seems odd to me. > > I am mainly referring to "official" communication, which means > squeak-dev in my book. > >> While I can't always read all of squeak-dev every day, I do watch >> the meetings notes threads for responses. I haven't seen any for >> several cycles. I encourage everyone to let loose there. :) I also >> look forward to when we have a tenable way for people to send meeting >> agenda item suggestions to us. > > I have had much less time than usual to discuss/track things. Otherwise > I might have commented on this fact earlier. > >> > Sure, I just skimmed meeting notes posted... >> >> Indeed, the meeting notes are the primary way we communicate with >> the community. They exist because, currently, I seem to be the only >> one who can spare the time to write them. Even sparing that time is >> nontrivial, so if someone would like to volunteer to make them more >> prominent, please contact me. I encourage anyone who chooses to spend >> significant time complaining to consider spending at least some of >> that time being on the leadership team instead. > > Hehe, well, I do think I am pulling my share in this community anyway > and also do think we who are not on the board are allowed to "complain". > :). And yes, I have considered it. > >> > ...and AFAICT there was a motion back in july: >> > >> > "Motion: Spoon will be basis of a R4 and 3.x will continue as planned >> > in 3.11 proposal as long as people want to maintain it. (Passed >> > unanimously) " >> > >> > ...but I can't say that the community is very AWARE of this and what >> > it means. So either the team is to "blame" for not speaking up or the >> > board is to blame for not showing the official support. >> >> The 3.11 team has the full support of the leadership team. The >> leadership team's understanding is that the 3.11 team (like all teams) >> would take responsibility for their task and its visibility. The >> primary task of the leadership team is to delegate. Again, those who >> prefer a different mandate for the leadership team should run for >> election. > > I would gladly have seen some kind of ANN to this effect and not just a > a few fuzzy lines hidden in meeting notes. I mean, we are talking about > an *assigned Team for the next release*! Kinda important don't you think? > > But considering the above being an official standpoint I will from now > on pester the 3.11 team instead about *its* visibility. :) > >> > Let me also YET AGAIN point to the team table on squeak.org: >> > >> > http://www.squeak.org/Community/Teams/ >> > >> > ... >> > >> > It seems I have pointed this out a THOUSAND times and nothing is >> > happening. >> >> The last time you said nothing was happening, I sat with you live >> on IRC and edited that table until you said you were satisfied with it. > > I can't imagine having said that I am "satisfied with it", see below > where I dug out the probable event from IRC logs. > >> Apparently you misspoke, or I misunderstood you to be satisfied. > > What has my satisfaction to do with total errors in the table anyway? > AFAIK that discussion centered around the *Team model*, although errors > in the table was also discussed. And you made some changes which I > didn't think were good but at least you took a stand and made it reflect > what you think and not what I thought when I wrote it originally. Fine. > >> Regardless, something did happen, and it is false to say that nothing >> happened. > > I am not sure something "did happen" with the actual table, or did it? > >> A few minutes ago I tried to login to edit that page, and the >> credentials I used before didn't work; I've asked Janko for new ones. >> >> If you are willing to point something out a thousand times, >> perhaps you might be willing to point it out nine hundred and >> ninety-nine times and then volunteer to do it yourself. > > Why should I volunteer to maintain a table that is meant to be > maintained by the board? > >> > If the board totally ignores this table then for god sake - >> > delete it. >> >> Göran, you know full well that I am the person responsible for >> that table. Why you choose to get upset, let months go by while being >> upset, and then post heated tirades here rather than contact me >> directly about it at some point during those months is quite beyond me. > > I haven't been upset for months! That would be crazy. I was writing a > post and ended up looking at the table once again (haven't looked in... > probably months) and just realized it was *just as obsolete* as it was > before. > > Now, sure, I could have emailed the board or whatever in private - but > what is the point? It doesn't seem to make any difference pointing it > out on IRC so why would it be different using email? > > Yes, I *am* slightly upset because it doesn't seem that you guys (the > board) care! > > You can not calim you care and then have all these errors... ok, let's > see... there are 16 rows and of those 16 I can easily spot: > > - 7 rows with coordinators that are not on the board anymore! > - No 3.11 team nor 4.0 team listed! > - About 5 teams (and probably more) that I think are dead in one way or > the other (please correct me if I am wrong): > -- Documentation Team > -- I/O Stewards > -- Modules > -- Packages > -- Toolbuilder > - A v3.9 team listed (eh, where did 3.10 go?) which AFAIK definitely is > not active anymore, Stephane is hardly active in that team, right? > - The Election team that *I* am teamleader for these days is not updated > to that effect either. ;) > > And probably lots of other errors. And oh, a little search found our > previous discussion about this page on IRC I believe: > > http://tunes.org/~nef//logs/squeak/08.05.19 > > ...so that was back in may? Please note: > > - Both the Morphic team and the Documentation team was clearly mentioned > as being deprecated during that discussion (just read it) but evidently > you did not update the table to that effect. > > - AFAIK we talked mainly about the Team *model*, and yes, you made > changes which I didn't like. Me being satisfied? No. But sure, now it > reflects what you think at least. > > ...or do you refer to a later IRC session? I can't find any. > > regards, Göran > > > -- Janko Mivšek AIDA/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si |
|
|
> The Teams page is now refreshed, or better said, back to the state it > was after we jointly edited it in August but it was later lost in one > of those server crashes. Thanks, Janko. Yeah, that content seemed even older than I remembered it... I've made another pass on it today, so now everyone can feel free to complain knowing that the content is intentional. :) -C p.s. I'm still catching up on squeak-dev messages from last week, due to work going crazy; more to come. -- Craig Latta improvisational musical informaticist www.netjam.org Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)] |
|
|
In reply to this post by Göran Krampe
Hi Göran-- > (Hmmm, odd, this email had a gmane address and not squeak-dev...) Yeah, I get squeak-dev via gmane (NNTP). Otherwise I'd never catch up. :) Andreas: > 3.11 has lost *all* visibility to me. I didn't know whether it had > even started because there was nothing on the server, there were no > announcements on this list, so how would people know? Göran: > IMHO this has more to do with our current board and its lack of... > communication. Me: > It's been quite a while since you've said anything to me on the > #squeak channel on IRC, and I'm there most days. Given your current > comments, this seems odd to me. Göran again (sorry for all quotation, it seems relevant for context): > I am mainly referring to "official" communication, which means > squeak-dev in my book. Sure, I agree. What I mean is that, given how upset you seemed to be about this, I'm surprised you didn't contact me directly to discuss it, particularly since it's so easy to do. I simply can't pay as much attention to squeak-dev as I do to direct contact; I'm sure I'm not unusual in this regard. > > I encourage anyone who chooses to spend significant time complaining > > to consider spending at least some of that time being on the > > leadership team instead. > > Hehe, well, I do think I am pulling my share in this community anyway > and also do think we who are not on the board are allowed to > "complain". I don't mean to cast aspersions on your level of commitment (or anyone's). I'm noting that you've spent a lot of energy on a particular thing (no scare-quotes needed, complaining is perfectly valid thing to do), and suggesting you could spend some of that energy more constructively. You write a lot of squeak-dev email, Göran, so much that I can't help but think you actually do have time to serve on the leadership team. :) I encourage you to run; I'm glad you've considered it and hope you will consider it again. > > The 3.11 team has the full support of the leadership team. The > > leadership team's understanding is that the 3.11 team (like all > > teams) would take responsibility for their task and its visibility. > > The primary task of the leadership team is to delegate. Again, those > > who prefer a different mandate for the leadership team should run > > for election. > > I would gladly have seen some kind of ANN to this effect and not just > a few fuzzy lines hidden in meeting notes. I mean, we are talking > about an *assigned Team for the next release*! Kinda important don't > you think? Of course it is, and so are the meeting notes. Just as it's the leadership team's responsibility to let the community know what happens in the meetings, it's each community member's responsibility to stay informed by reading the meeting notes. And those notes are short. :) I think it's a stretch to say that anything's buried in there. Again, anyone who thinks something isn't stated prominently enough can volunteer to amplify it. Ken has been doing just this with many community items, in fact. (Hey Ken, you should run in the election, too. :) > But considering the above being an official standpoint I will from now > on pester the 3.11 team instead about *its* visibility. :) Cool! :) > [the Teams table] I suspect our most recent exchange about this is moot, given that my August edits got swizzled in the server crashes, so I'll just wait to hear what you think of the current restored and corrected version. And reiterate that I care. There's no way I would put up with you if I didn't care. ;) thanks again, -C -- Craig Latta improvisational musical informaticist www.netjam.org Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)] |
Re: [squeak-dev] re: the Teams page
|
|
Hi!
Craig Latta wrote: > > I am mainly referring to "official" communication, which means > > squeak-dev in my book. > > Sure, I agree. What I mean is that, given how upset you seemed to > be about this, I'm surprised you didn't contact me directly to discuss > it, particularly since it's so easy to do. I simply can't pay as much > attention to squeak-dev as I do to direct contact; I'm sure I'm not > unusual in this regard. I know that I have contacted you directly on IRC about it before. And even though my memory is awfully short it feels I have yapped about it on several occasions. I haven't felt that you (the board) have cared, and since the page was so totally out-of-date I still think you (the board) haven't cared - but on the other hand I now think you DO care. > > > I encourage anyone who chooses to spend significant time complaining > > > to consider spending at least some of that time being on the > > > leadership team instead. > > > > Hehe, well, I do think I am pulling my share in this community anyway > > and also do think we who are not on the board are allowed to > > "complain". > > I don't mean to cast aspersions on your level of commitment (or > anyone's). I'm noting that you've spent a lot of energy on a particular > thing (no scare-quotes needed, complaining is perfectly valid thing to > do), and suggesting you could spend some of that energy more > constructively. I have not spent "much energy" nor "significant time" on this. I do however think it was both worth it and the right thing to do. Feel free to say it was not and that it was not "constructive" - I disagree. > You write a lot of squeak-dev email, Göran, so much that I can't > help but think you actually do have time to serve on the leadership > team. :) In fact, I don't write that much. I used to, but haven't in quite a while. Checking november archive shows you posted more than I did for example. > I encourage you to run; I'm glad you've considered it and hope > you will consider it again. I kinda feel I have "been there, done that" etc. Given sparse time I try to spend it on concrete stuff instead. [SNIP of reasoning about no need for an ANNOUNCEMENT of the next release team] > > [the Teams table] > > I suspect our most recent exchange about this is moot, given that > my August edits got swizzled in the server crashes, so I'll just wait to > hear what you think of the current restored and corrected version. And > reiterate that I care. There's no way I would put up with you if I > didn't care. ;) Nice to see that you still don't claim it to be "fine". Since you ask (and it is nice if we get this fully fresh), are the following three teams still "active"? - ToolBuilder - packages - software engineering ...if their respective Team leaders say they are then I am all fine with them of course. I just suspect at least one or two of those three are pretty "dead". But perhaps you (and Bert) have checked with Hans, Brian and Avi? regards, Göran PS. As per Eliot's requests (which I presume got triggered by me being a PITA about this) I personally conclude this thread was worth it. |
Re: [squeak-dev] re: the Teams page
|
|
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 4:58 AM, Göran Krampe <[hidden email]> wrote: [snip] Um, for me what happened was that the thread brought to my attention the teams and tasks opage which Id been unaware of. So it seemed the right thing to do to start a VM team since I'm working on a new Squeak VM anyway :)
best Eliot
|
Re: [squeak-dev] re: the Teams page
|
|
Eliot Miranda wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 4:58 AM, Göran Krampe <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> [snip] >> >> regards, Göran >> >> PS. As per Eliot's requests (which I presume got triggered by me being a >> PITA about this) I personally conclude this thread was worth it. > > Um, for me what happened was that the thread brought to my attention the > teams and tasks opage which Id been unaware of. So it seemed the right > thing to do to start a VM team since I'm working on a new Squeak VM anyway > :) ...which is what I meant. :) That your request got triggered by me bringing up the Team page I mean. And the fact that you were unaware of it just *reinforces* my belief that the board (or whatever we call them) have not done a good job in communicating that they work/support the Team model. Ok, enough bitching, just hoping that this will change from now on. regards, Göran |
|
|
In reply to this post by Göran Krampe
> Nice to see that you still don't claim [the Teams page] to be "fine". On the contrary, I did think my August edits were fine at the time. The real issue here is that we disagree on how the Teams page should be maintained. > Since you ask (and it is nice if we get this fully fresh), are the > following three teams still "active"? ...if their respective Team > leaders say they are then I am all fine with them of course. I just > suspect at least one or two of those three are pretty "dead". I still think that until someone volunteers to take over the team, or argues that it shouldn't exist conceptually, or the team leader resigns, having the last known info for the team there is useful. I deleted the "software engineering" and "ToolBuilder" teams from the table because I don't care to argue it. I'll leave it to someone who wants to lead such teams to bring it up again. As for the "packages" team, it seems to me that Keith has taken over its task. I've asked him and Avi if they agree (Avi does, I haven't heard from Keith yet). > And the fact that you were unaware of [the data loss] just > *reinforces* my belief that the board (or whatever we call them)... It's the leadership team. > ...have not done a good job in communicating that they work/support > the Team model. Well, it reinforces my belief that we disagree about what the team model is and how to communicate about it. -C -- Craig Latta improvisational musical informaticist www.netjam.org Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)] |
«
Return to Squeak - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |