[Release] 3.11 liaison change

[Andreas Raab]

Hi Keith -

> Randal said hold off on on 3.11 until 4.10 is done. I took a bit of time
> to try and pay my way. Then you present a coup d'etat without discussion.

Where were you the last week? ;-) There have been literally hundreds of 
messages on Squeak-dev. And, by definition a coup d'etat is "is the 
sudden, unconstitutional deposition of a legitimate government, by a 
small group of the State Establishment". I am a legitimate member of the 
governing body of the Squeak community, I have been elected, and the 
board agrees with the proposal. So, clearly, this isn't a coup d'etat. 
It is in fact the sole reason why I ran for the board to begin with, see 
for example here:

http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2009-February/134124.html

> What is the release at lists.squeakfoundation.org for?
> 
> I give you a clue.... discussing things that are relevant to the release
> team.

What I've been proposing is intended for the community at large, not for 
the (much smaller) release team. That's why I've posted on Squeak-dev.

> If I wanted to work for people who acted like this I would go and work
> for pharo. The whole point of staying with squeak is that we dont want
> to act like a bunch of arogant twats. So Andreas, I respectfully ask
> that you BACK OFF, and work WITH people not against them.

In return I respectfully ask you to stop using ALL CAPS. I have 
absolutely no intension to work against you. You might have missed this 
but the proposal includes all the parts of the infrastructure you've 
been working, from Installer to Bob.

> Why cause problems when there werent any.

Now that I would disagree with ;-) The community at large had problems 
contributing. Yes, you and Matthew did contribute, but except from you 
two nobody understood how. As you will remember I've tried several time 
to explain what I thought the contribution process is but it's way to 
complex for people to easily contribute. We need to get past this, as a 
community we can't afford processes that only allow one or two people to 
contribute.

> I dont use MCM's, because I dont understand them and they are useless.
> So an update mechanism based on them is a no go.

That's okay, you don't have to use MCMs for your work. I have used them 
extensively, they work and although they have shortcomings they can be 
made to work for an update mechanism. I'm surprised you say it's a "no 
go" given that I've already proven that they can work:

http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2009-July/136870.html

In addition, here is a quote from the post: "We are evaluating 
alternative approaches, in particular the use of Installer since there 
are some shortcomings when using Monticello Configurations." Igor is 
actively looking into that area and you can help him define an easier 
process.

Cheers,
   - Andreas