Hi Stephan!

Stephan B. Wessels <swessels at cox.net> wrote:
> My reaction here has nothing to do with not wanting to see leadership. =20=
> I think the delivery was dumb.  Leadership is having a clear vision and=20=
> having people willing to come along.
> 
> I have a lot more respect for the model, that shows respect for the=20
> group as a whole, where you announce your intent and seek feedback. =20
> Not necessarily on what you will do as you guide or lead but on gaining=20=
> support for your desire to lead.  My gut reaction is very negative to=20
> someone that announces they are in charge now, when I didn't even=20
> though there was someone seeking it.
> 
> Does that make sense?  I'm just saying what felt like an arbitrary=20
> unilateral action may have in fact been a great thing if you at least=20
> shared your intent before doing so.

Yes, it makes sense - and I refer a bit to my reply to Dan for some
exlanation of it.

And btw, if any of you guys think it is EASY to do a thing like this -
think again. Mistakes are made, no matter what you do, and there are
hurdles all over the place, that is at least the way it feels. Some of
you have seen the SqF efforts over the years for example of how a
seemingly easy task (getting an organisation in place to lead Squeak)
actually turns out to be very, very hard.

So we decided to take a more "direct route", for better or worse. But
please, wait for the first report coming later today and I think things
will clear.

> The right thing now is for all of us to find a way to reconcile the=20
> issues and complaints that people have had (which I enumerated=20
> somewhat) and get this baby going forward with great efficiency. =20
> Better tools, better plans, better code!
> 
>   - Steve

regards, Göran