Hi Ron--

> Do you support stepping up fundraising? If so, what do you propose to
> do with the money collected?

     It seems to me that there is a very strong consensus in the
community in support of increased fundraising; I support it as well. In
fact, this consensus is so strong that the first part of the question
strikes me as very odd. Clearly (to me), the tricky part, and where
there *is* disagreement, is about creating an appropriate legal entity
to receive and disburse the funds.

     If we had funding, I would suggest we spend it on keeping the
community's online facilities running (hosting bills, etc.). If we can
devise a fair and productive way to fund development, I would support
that as well.

> Do you support bounty projects? If so, can you lay out how you would
> like to see a bounty program administered?

     As I said above, I support funding development in a fair and
productive way. The typical "bounty" seems to consist of a vague
statement of the desired result and a rather arbitrary financial reward.
I think doing something like this in the Squeak community would almost
certainly lead to bitterness, because it would be a race where every
loser would invest far more effort than is reasonable. I think it would
create unconstructive competition. It would turn developers into
footrace contestants working in secret, each hoping to beat the others.
There would be significant pressure to claim to be first, rather than
doing the job properly; and I suspect there would be a great deal of
arguing over whether the goal was actually met, and the people arguing
would have a financial interest in the outcome. Not good!

     For each desired result, I would much rather see the appropriate
community team solicit and refine bids from interested developers, in
public, and choose one. With a dialog between bidders and the rest of
the community, I think we'd be more likely to define the goal with
sufficient detail, and choose appropriate rewards. I expect that a bid
could be rescinded if work went over schedule, etc.

     Of course, for any of this to be possible, we need to have a budget
which is both sufficiently large and *sustainable*.

> Do you support incorporation and not for profit tax status for Squeak
> Foundation?

     This question strikes me as especially loaded. The Squeak
Foundation board of directors has already been working toward this for
months, as you can read in the board meeting notes. Isn't it a bit late
to be asking this question? Why didn't you take issue with our approach
when we mentioned it in the meeting notes? The main signal I get from
this question is that you oppose incorporation as a distinct tax-exempt
organization, and that you're somehow trying to draw support for that
point of view. Not long after you initially posted these questions, my
suspicion was proved correct by a subsequent message you sent to the
board (which I leave to you to repeat in public if you wish).

     At best, I think you have a conflict of interest on this issue
(between speaking for the community in asking campaign questions and
having your own agenda on this issue).

> What do you believe is the future of Smalltalk?

     I think the future of Smalltalk is one in which it is seen as the
easiest way to teach the expression of intent with a computer, and the
most productive way to build meaningful systems. So far I think
Smalltalk has done rather well on the second part, but very poorly on
the first.

> What do you think the community is doing right, what should be
> improved?

     The community has started to delegate tasks to the right interested
people, which is great. The way we communicate, though, isn't terribly
effective. I think it'd help if we devoted more effort to real-time
communication (e.g., via the Squeak IRC channel, Skype, and in-person
conferences).

> Should the Squeak be represented at more conferences?

     Of course it should. I can't imagine why anyone would answer "no"
to this question, so it seems very odd. There are, however, reasons why
we might not able to accomplish it, such as a lack of funds or available
time. I hope no one will confuse a lack of resources with a lack of desire.

> Should Tim be given a gazillon dollars for his excellent work on
> Squeak?

     We should all have a gazillion dollars for our excellent work on
Squeak.

> They are not arbitrary questions or one sided Ron's agenda questions.

     I hope I made myself clear about that in my answers.

> I thought they were pretty well sanitized and general.  Some of them
> are downright softballs!

     Whether or not they're softballs is beside the point. Some of the
questions were *leading*, not necessarily aggressive. I think tough
questions are fine.

     Well, judging by the inevitable email storm around questioning, it
seems to me that to remain above reproach a candidate must answer any
and all questions asked by anyone everywhere (lest a flashing red "DID
NOT RESPOND" descend from the skies :). I'll certainly try to answer any
question I see, as my available time allows. But you'll pardon me if I
answer the questions I see between the lines as well. :)

     Finally, thanks for your work on the elections team, Ron (and
thanks to Daniel and the rest of the team). While I disagree with some
of your ideas about how to conduct an election, I do appreciate your work.


     thanks again,

-C

-- 
Craig Latta
http://netjam.org/resume