Sorry I was terribly busy with my house.
Now should each candidates reply to the questions of ron following  
what craig just did?
I'm confused I thought that we should not but Craig seems to reply to  
all the questions.

Stef

>
> 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 could be rescinded if work went over schedule, etc.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
>
>
>