[squeak-dev] Re: the Teams page
janko.mivsek at eranova.si
Mon Dec 15 22:54:00 UTC 2008
Teams page is now refreshed, or better said, back to the state it was
after we jointly edited it in August but it was later lost in one of
those server crashes. Old SmallWiki namely required the manual image
snapshot for saving the changes, which as a fresh team leader of course
Luckily I managed to still found pages from Google cache. From this
cache I today reconstructed Teams page, so that now we can continue this
debate on current http://www.squeak.org/Community/Teams/
Göran Krampe wrote:
> (Hmmm, odd, this email had a gmane address and not squeak-dev...)
> Sorry for the longish reply but hey:
> Craig Latta wrote:
>> Andreas writes:
>> > 3.11 has lost *all* visibility to me. I didn't know whether it had
>> > even started because there was nothing on the server, there were no
>> > announcements on this list, so how would people know?
>> Göran responds:
>> > IMHO this has more to do with our current board and its lack of...
>> > communication.
>> It's been quite a while since you've said anything to me on the
>> #squeak channel on IRC, and I'm there most days. Given your current
>> comments, this seems odd to me.
> I am mainly referring to "official" communication, which means
> squeak-dev in my book.
>> While I can't always read all of squeak-dev every day, I do watch
>> the meetings notes threads for responses. I haven't seen any for
>> several cycles. I encourage everyone to let loose there. :) I also
>> look forward to when we have a tenable way for people to send meeting
>> agenda item suggestions to us.
> I have had much less time than usual to discuss/track things. Otherwise
> I might have commented on this fact earlier.
>> > Sure, I just skimmed meeting notes posted...
>> Indeed, the meeting notes are the primary way we communicate with
>> the community. They exist because, currently, I seem to be the only
>> one who can spare the time to write them. Even sparing that time is
>> nontrivial, so if someone would like to volunteer to make them more
>> prominent, please contact me. I encourage anyone who chooses to spend
>> significant time complaining to consider spending at least some of
>> that time being on the leadership team instead.
> Hehe, well, I do think I am pulling my share in this community anyway
> and also do think we who are not on the board are allowed to "complain".
> :). And yes, I have considered it.
>> > ...and AFAICT there was a motion back in july:
>> > "Motion: Spoon will be basis of a R4 and 3.x will continue as planned
>> > in 3.11 proposal as long as people want to maintain it. (Passed
>> > unanimously) "
>> > ...but I can't say that the community is very AWARE of this and what
>> > it means. So either the team is to "blame" for not speaking up or the
>> > board is to blame for not showing the official support.
>> The 3.11 team has the full support of the leadership team. The
>> leadership team's understanding is that the 3.11 team (like all teams)
>> would take responsibility for their task and its visibility. The
>> primary task of the leadership team is to delegate. Again, those who
>> prefer a different mandate for the leadership team should run for
> I would gladly have seen some kind of ANN to this effect and not just a
> a few fuzzy lines hidden in meeting notes. I mean, we are talking about
> an *assigned Team for the next release*! Kinda important don't you think?
> But considering the above being an official standpoint I will from now
> on pester the 3.11 team instead about *its* visibility. :)
>> > Let me also YET AGAIN point to the team table on squeak.org:
>> > http://www.squeak.org/Community/Teams/
>> > ...
>> > It seems I have pointed this out a THOUSAND times and nothing is
>> > happening.
>> The last time you said nothing was happening, I sat with you live
>> on IRC and edited that table until you said you were satisfied with it.
> I can't imagine having said that I am "satisfied with it", see below
> where I dug out the probable event from IRC logs.
>> Apparently you misspoke, or I misunderstood you to be satisfied.
> What has my satisfaction to do with total errors in the table anyway?
> AFAIK that discussion centered around the *Team model*, although errors
> in the table was also discussed. And you made some changes which I
> didn't think were good but at least you took a stand and made it reflect
> what you think and not what I thought when I wrote it originally. Fine.
>> Regardless, something did happen, and it is false to say that nothing
> I am not sure something "did happen" with the actual table, or did it?
>> A few minutes ago I tried to login to edit that page, and the
>> credentials I used before didn't work; I've asked Janko for new ones.
>> If you are willing to point something out a thousand times,
>> perhaps you might be willing to point it out nine hundred and
>> ninety-nine times and then volunteer to do it yourself.
> Why should I volunteer to maintain a table that is meant to be
> maintained by the board?
>> > If the board totally ignores this table then for god sake -
>> > delete it.
>> Göran, you know full well that I am the person responsible for
>> that table. Why you choose to get upset, let months go by while being
>> upset, and then post heated tirades here rather than contact me
>> directly about it at some point during those months is quite beyond me.
> I haven't been upset for months! That would be crazy. I was writing a
> post and ended up looking at the table once again (haven't looked in...
> probably months) and just realized it was *just as obsolete* as it was
> Now, sure, I could have emailed the board or whatever in private - but
> what is the point? It doesn't seem to make any difference pointing it
> out on IRC so why would it be different using email?
> Yes, I *am* slightly upset because it doesn't seem that you guys (the
> board) care!
> You can not calim you care and then have all these errors... ok, let's
> see... there are 16 rows and of those 16 I can easily spot:
> - 7 rows with coordinators that are not on the board anymore!
> - No 3.11 team nor 4.0 team listed!
> - About 5 teams (and probably more) that I think are dead in one way or
> the other (please correct me if I am wrong):
> -- Documentation Team
> -- I/O Stewards
> -- Modules
> -- Packages
> -- Toolbuilder
> - A v3.9 team listed (eh, where did 3.10 go?) which AFAIK definitely is
> not active anymore, Stephane is hardly active in that team, right?
> - The Election team that *I* am teamleader for these days is not updated
> to that effect either. ;)
> And probably lots of other errors. And oh, a little search found our
> previous discussion about this page on IRC I believe:
> ...so that was back in may? Please note:
> - Both the Morphic team and the Documentation team was clearly mentioned
> as being deprecated during that discussion (just read it) but evidently
> you did not update the table to that effect.
> - AFAIK we talked mainly about the Team *model*, and yes, you made
> changes which I didn't like. Me being satisfied? No. But sure, now it
> reflects what you think at least.
> ...or do you refer to a later IRC session? I can't find any.
> regards, Göran
Smalltalk Web Application Server
More information about the Squeak-dev