[Release] 3.11 liaison change

[Keith Hodges]

Andreas Raab wrote:
> 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. 
Avoiding the discussion as much as possible.

It included many contributions and ideas that have been done to death in
the past. The main protagonists of the discussion appeared to be people
I had never seen before and since they were just talking.
> And, by definition a coup d'etat is "is the sudden
Yes sudden... all I saw was two messages yesterday announcing "THE new
process" not even "A" new process.
> 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:
The last time the board acted like this is cancelled 3.11 altogether in
favour of spoon, that doesn't mean it is right.
> 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.
We have mantis for the community at large, how about encouraging people
to use it.

How does posting an update to a MC package help when... there is no
context or explanation as to what the update is for. And the image hasnt
yet been divided up in to suitable module/packages for this kind of
module maintenance.
> 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.
You confuse technical problems with people problems. I am talking about
causing people problems.

Management problem... announcing to Squeak-dev new proposals without
consulting the people that this effects.

> Now that I would disagree with ;-) The community at large had problems
> contributing. 
The community at large isnt being encouraged to volunter and discuss
their potential contributions on release or irc.
> 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. 
You explained it to people, I have seen you... so why do you say it is
too dificult now.

1. for the kernel put fixes on mantis, its not hard. Bob handles the MC
side of things (in theory)
2. For loadable packages, contribute to the maintenance of the package
(define the package in Universes/Sake)
3. For unloadable packages, contribute both 1 and 2.

> 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:
The whole idea of an update mechanism is an anathema... its back to a
moving target.
>
> 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."
First I have head of it, but then I dont use mcm's. MCM support fixes
are included in LPF whether they work as advertised I don't know.

Keith