Goran,
   I think you are being more than a little flippant and not looking at the
issues raised. Read through your answers below and see how many of them are
"I don’t see it, so it doesn't exist" type of answers. 
I am sorry you can't see the contradictions; I thought they were blindly
obvious.

As for the "in" crowd, are you serious that you don't know what I am talking
about? Just ask yourself this, if I and at least 4-5 others have mentioned
it, maybe you should stop and think about WHY we are saying it. What is that
we see that you don’t? Your answers have been "I don’t see it, so I can't
understand why you are saying it". To blindly dismiss the concerns of others
is not a great start.

It is obvious that there are people who, if there are 2 opposing sides to a
solution, are MUCH more successful at getting their modifications included
into Squeak than others. Partly due to just doing it, partly because they
are "trusted" by others who have a lot of influence, partly because they
have been around long enough to know how to work the system. BTW none of
these things are necessarily a bad thing, it is realistically how the world
works, and I am just amazed that you can't see it.

Not everyone is gun programmer or whiz at debugging code. That does not mean
that "users" cannot come up with useful suggestions. However I think that
there are more than a few "old hands" who are very dismissive of suggestions
from anyone who has not "proved" themselves to their satisfaction. I think
that is wasting talent that Squeak can't afford to lose. Where are the
people who said they were happy to mentor? I realise that people are happy
to help on this list, but that seems to be for smaller things, particular
bugs etc not architecturally.

I think I sent you down the wrong path with the goals or feature list. I
don’t think that is the problem per se. You write "Getting processes in
place is one of our challenges. But given our existence we might actually
get it done." I would have to say "might" is not good enough, if you don't I
think you will have failed. 
Who cares what the next release brings? (well, I know I and everyone else
does but that’s not the point :) 
What matters is that there is a well defined process to make that decision,
to verify that things work, to announce releases, to be able to report and
fix bugs, to upgrade software with a reasonable chance of success, etc. Oh
and a process to get people, who want to help, started! I think you forget
what a daunting prospect this can be.
Concentrate on the processes and the results will speak for themselves.

I am NOT, repeat NOT, against your approach. I think it was badly executed
and badly written but that is water under the bridge. Go for it, I will be
hoping that you succeed. I do reserve the right to constructively criticise
and I think you need to pay a bit more attention to the constructive
criticism on the list. Just you can't see something, doesn't mean it doesn't
exist.

R

> -----Original Message-----
> From: goran.krampe at bluefish.se [mailto:goran.krampe at bluefish.se]
> Sent: Thursday, 17 February 2005 9:27 AM
> To: russell.penney at tincanct.com
> Cc: 'The general-purpose Squeak developers list'
> Subject: RE: [ANN][IMPORTANT] New leadership formed!
> 
> Hi Russell and all!
> 
> "Russell Penney" <russell.penney at tincanct.com> wrote:
> > Goran,
> >    Thank you for this; you have gone a LONG way in answering my
> questions.
> > BTW I have read this email and no others in the very long thread as I
> didn't
> > want to 'taint' my viewpoint after reading yours.
> >
> > I think there has been great misunderstanding, I have no idea if it is
> on
> > your or my part or both. I have reread your email and I have to say I
> still
> > see this as "your views will be overruled if it suits our purposes" BUT
> I
> > could be wrong. It happens often! :)
> 
> That does not sound at all how we intend to work.
> 
> > Ah I know what the issue is; there are contradictions in what you are
> saying
> > now and previous emails by you, others in the islands group and other in
> > influence.
> 
> There are? Well, "other in influence" includes this whole list. :) But I
> hope I am in accordance with the others in the group.
> 
> > Well maybe not contradictions, maybe because of the fact that
> > there is no place that describes the feature list that will go into the
> next
> > release of Squeak or in fact the goals of the next release.
> 
> True, there is no such list or place yet. Well, we have the presented
> roadmap from Stephane as input, but to look at it, discuss it openly and
> get it nailed is very high on our todolist.
> 
> > When I read the
> > list, I see Namespaces, Traits, Spoon and several others as accepted
> goals
> > for Squeak in the next few releases. This is coming from people I
> associated
> > with being Guides and therefore keepers of the sacred destiny. So I
> believe
> > that, maybe I shouldn't.
> 
> Eh... where do you read that? I am guessing it is a big super wish list
> that perhaps Stephane and crew has presented as long term interesting
> goals. None of them were Guides btw.
> 
> > If you have read my emails lately, I have point blank suggested that the
> > guides SHOULD be guiding. There is a difference between guiding and
> > benevolent dictatorships however. What is the process if a large
> proportion
> > of the community disagree with the islands group?
> 
> That will be worked out. We just got started, the processes are still
> forming.
> 
> And also - we intend to work using open discussion as this community has
> been used to doing for the last few years. I think we will think twice
> before painting ourselves into such a corner and trying to go agains a
> "large proportion" of the community. Well, "large" is of course hard to
> define. All decisions made will go against *someone*. :)
> 
> > In fact where are any of
> > the processes we really need? Everyone talks about Debian and packaging,
> > they have RULES, and we do not. Fix that and you have got me backing you
> up
> > 100%.
> 
> Well, I am pretty sure that packaging, TFNR etc will be of very high
> priority - as I hope everyone have seen given the recent discussions on
> those topics in which we have been active.
> 
> Getting processes in place is one of our challenges. But given our
> existence we might actually get it done.
> 
> > Hmmmm I have read and reread your statement. I have written and re-
> written
> > several extensions to this email. Frankly I am tired and I dont think
> there
> > is anything I can say that will change or divert this occurrence. So I
> will
> > bow out and let whatever happens, happen. Maybe I am just being negative
> ;)
> 
> Well, I am sorry to say it - but yes. :) It is all quite simple (let me
> simplify it a bit):
> 
> We are a group of people standing up offering our time and effort, for a
> limited temporary time, to the community taking a much higher degree of
> responsibility than the Guides ever did or any other group has done
> since 2002. But you can't take responsibility without also take the
> decisions. Do you want this offer?
> 
> And of course it is all based on us delivering what we say we will.
> 
> > All I will say is PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE be inclusive of this community,
> there
> > are a LOT of people making good suggestions that are not being
> acknowledged
> > by the "in" crowd (and yes I strongly believe there is one).
> 
> This goes without saying. Some of you think we are going to run all over
> you guys like some mad bandits. Get real. :) We are the same guys that
> have been working and discussing things for years in this community.
> 
> I still don't get what is meant by the "in" crowd. Is that some subset
> of people on this list that in your view has more influence on the
> community than the rest?
> 
> > Oh for those who maybe don't have English as a first language, an "in"
> crowd
> > is a clique with influence, you know that group of popular kids at
> school
> > who made it hell for us nerds :)
> 
> Ok, well, I kinda guessed, but I still don't understand *who* they are.
> :) Level of influence is coupled to tons of aspects - it is not
> something you can be given nor take.
> 
> > Russell
> 
> regards, Göran
>