>> Sure this is what we are doing with Morphic enh (we trust eddie's   
>> speedup, we trust romain service architecture, we trust   
>> PLMrefactoring and accept that they may break a bit)
>> we just pay attention that the system at the end still work.
>>
>
> The problem with this "trust model" is that you are still standing  
> squarely in the way of those people making independent progress.  
> And like it or not, you aren't the expert in this area, and if you  
> aren't who are you to say whether to extend the trust to that  
> person? That's exactly what gets us into the mess - there is a  
> "well meant" idea which is then poorly executed because nobody with  
> actual firsthand knowledge is involved in the process.

So what is the alternative, your attitude is then to do nothing and  
complain that nothing happened.
We always asked for someone with knowledge in Morphic to help and  
nothing. Ned was doing that when he was payed to
work on projects for VPR. Now if you look nobody would have looked at  
the speedup of eddie for morphic and then
they would have stay there for some years.

> Secondly, (because I know this would be your next point ;-) you  
> need to give maintainers some time to react. I know that you are  
> going to say now, namely: "but we waited two years and nobody did  
> anything!!!" But that's not true because we *don't* have  
> maintainers. We only have maintainers for those things that  
> actually packagized, and here it is the rare exception (if it ever  
> happened) that these things get completely forgotten. And yes, this  
> can happen, and yes, in such a situation one needs to react. But it  
> is still an exceptional situation and you are now effectively  
> operating under "exceptional rules" all the time ;-)

? DNU?
>
>
>>> That's exactly the point, isn't it? If you want to do that,  
>>> e.g.,  personally ensure that everything gets integrated, then  
>>> your only  option is to take ownership of all the code. But then  
>>> please don't  complain, it's been your choice ;-) Alternatively,  
>>> your only option  is to believe in an economy that scales and the  
>>> only way to get  there is to stand back and delegate. Your task  
>>> should then be to  *find* people who do the work and who feel  
>>> responsible, not *do*  the work (I think Goran understands that).
>>>
>> This is what we have been trying to do, but who want/can want to  
>> that?
>>
>
> You did? I fail to see any traces of that process :-( What I have  
> seen is requests for people to "do the slave labour", but I have  
> yet to see any attempt to delegate actual responsibility.

It is always so easy to discuss with you. You stand back and you  
shoot. This is really the easy model. At least we are communicating  
today.
Who can take responsibilities of Morphic today?

> Even with Ken and Goran's  latest attempt it stays again in the  
> "inner circle" of people who do have commit rights to "basic  
> Squeak" to begin with.

>>> The point is that the system is too big for you on a personal  
>>> level  and that it's too big for anyone and that even looking at   
>>> subsystems like Morphic it's daunting task. You need to get this   
>>> smaller to get people involved but to get people involved you  
>>> have  to trust them.
>>>
>> Exact this is what we are doing. So may be these people should  
>> have  access to the "update stream"
>
> I don't actually think so. These people should have access to their  
> packages, that's what they really need.

But this is not always that simple and they can publish in their  
package already.
We do not touch the packages that are maintained except when we  
cannot do otherwise.

>
>
>> But you saw what happened when diego started to work on Morphic,   
>> impara got afraid and said that they would do a fast release (btw   
>> this will become the ultimate joke I have against the Beeper   
>> beep :)).
>>
>
> You make this sound as if we deliberately delayed the release to  
> make sure that Diego's changes don't get in.

because this was not that?

> But if I remember correctly, then the real killer argument in 3.9a  
> was that when you asked for help to integrate these changes, you  
> didn't get any feedback. That has very little to do with Impara.

Then I think that you should think about what is the message that was  
sent around.

>> OK excellent! We have no problem to see you working on integrated   
>> your stuff on 3.9a but your attitude certainly lets marcus think  
>> that  you
>> were not interested. So this is a good news. Are you commited to   
>> maintain, integrate your package in 3.9a?
>>
>
> I think I can speak for everyone involved in the ToolBuilder work  
> (which isn't just me) that we are committed to maintain and enhance  
> ToolBuilder for the foreseeable time (btw, we still need help with  
> MVC support!). And we will certainly work with any (existing or  
> potential) customer to help you get started and work with ToolBuilder.

Excellent. When I meant you I meant also the team. But again noone of  
this group ever mentioned that they would help integrating
it into 3.9. So we thought that we had to do it.

> However, we won't write your code. Don't expect that we suddenly  
> run around in the whole system and rewrite every class to use  
> ToolBuilder. Not our code, remember? As far as I am concerned you  
> are free to completely ignore ToolBuilder.

May be this would be the easiest way that you could say in the future  
that we ignored it.
I think that with some more communication we could get much more  
positive energy.

>> Excellent news. So we added it on the list of the stuff not to  
>> let  die because nobody pay attention.
>> Marcus will be more than happy I can tell you. So let us know  
>> when  you want to start. Doug has the account info
>> and as soon as marcus arrive in Chile and we get script 6 load  
>> you  can integrate your changes.
>> Again WHY DID NOT YOU SEND US AN EMAIL TO SAY THAT?
>>
>
> If you have any issues with ToolBuilder integration you should talk  
> to Brian Brown and not yell at me. Brian is the appointed team  
> leader with the specific task to make sure this stuff gets  
> integrated. Beyound that you may want to talk to the appointed  
> Coordinator (which would be Cees) if you feel that Brian isn't  
> helpful. I don't see any reason why you yell at me - I have never  
> promised to work on integration, I have only promised to work on  
> the framework. Which is precisely what I have done, and will do in  
> the future.
>
> Besides that, have you ever asked at the dedicated Toolbuilder  
> mailing list? Has Marcus ever mentioned that he's got problems to  
> anyone? I don't see any messages towards that end. Why do you yell  
> at me?

Because I see you quite negative towards us. There is a major  
difference between giving feedback and saying guys pay attention to  
do that
or that and we always listened. and to just shoot people after the fact.


> Besides that, I don't see any time pressure for ToolBuilder  
> integration. As soon as it is available people can decide whether  
> they want to use it or not. I don't see any reason to force anybody  
> to do that and neither do I see any reason to force integration.
>
>> Come on andreas. I found that quite low level remark. You never  
>> payed  any attention to  the work done by the Morphic Cleaning  
>> Project else
>> with a bit of steering they would have made great stuff. The only  
>> way  to get people commited to do something is to pay attention to  
>> what  they are doing.
>>
>
> There are two reasons why I haven't paid any attention: First is  
> that in my eyes mechanical rewriting is completely useless. If you  
> want to rewrite code to clean it up, fine, but that's got nothing  
> to do with mechanically replacing all references to "foo at: 1"  
> with "foo first". That kind of cleanup is simply useless and I  
> won't spend one second to look at it. If you want to clean up  
> something then take a functional entity (say PLM) and do that.  
> That's the kind of refactoring I can approve of but most of what  
> was done wasn't that kind.

Then why did not tell it to the people in a nice way at that time.

> Second, I *don't* claim any ownership about Morphic. I'm done with  
> it, over, out. If you want to refactor, refactor. I'm fine with  
> that. And since my time is limited too, I don't look at these  
> refactorings.

I know I did not expect that now. I took that as an example.

> Again, I wasn't talking about Morphic specifically, I was talking  
> about code ownership in general. I actually agree that if there's a  
> problem in the way of everyone and if there's no maintainer then  
> something needs to be done, no matter what.

Ok so our communication is not as smooth as it could be but we are  
making progress.
I basically agree with you, but again walking with people is a slow  
way to make something happen but this is what
we do with kids and at the end our kids are beautiful adults. So  
consider that: give early feedback to people.