2009/8/14 Keith Hodges <keith_hodges at yahoo.co.uk>:
> This is due to one reason only.
>
> The information about the idea of trunk was published on squeak-dev by
> Andreas. We were working on release at squeakfoundation.org because
> previous release teams have had very much similar problems with the
> lions den that is squeak-dev (remember 3.9 and subsequent fallout anyone)
>
> Bob built a closures image in February - Andreas could have recruited
> people to look at it and work on the closures initiative then.
> Mantis fix loading automation was finished a number of months ago,
> Andreas could have recruited people to work on that process.
> He could have equally well discussed Bob on squeak-dev and recruited
> people to work on relevant stuff for that process.

Wait. Are you blaming Andreas for the failure, if any, of your process?

Regardless, he sure could have discussed about Bob on the mailing
list. Andreas, would you care to discuss about Bob on the mailing
list? Andreas, please, could you in particular ask the community to
cast votes for and against a closed source software, such as Bob,
being used for such an important part of the Squeak release process?

> I had proposed a couple of projects that needed working on. The release
> team should not have to participate in squeak-dev at all, it is well
> known for chewing people up - ask Marcus Denker.

That might be absolutely true. The community still needs some positive
energy being injected in. And to get people involved in the core
Squeak might also mean to extend discussions to squeak-dev, which is
meant to release mailing list.

>> Whether you like it or not, 3.11 process is not exactly an instant
>> hit. And it's unlikely to be readjusted considering that you are
>> overlooking the human and social aspects of Squeak.
>>
> What would those be?

o_O

>> You are trying to tell us that Andreas is evil and entrapped us into
>> some twisted process, then you have announced that Bob is closed
>> source (and unlikely to be otherwise). Are we completely doom or
>> something?
>>
> Yes.

The most concise answer you've ever wrote. That's quite expletive though.

> The board needs to establish a protocol which goes some way to protect
> volunteers which it (allegedly) supports. I have lost income due to the
> boards actions.

This is a serious problem if you have based your business model on
something that can be directly and so easily affected by an open
source project board. The fault is yours.

The Squeak Oversight Board certainly should come up with a plan to
support commercial developers. I'd be glad to see more discussions
about this. Bob being closed source definitively means that your in
"for profit", rather than purely voluntary.

> Keith

Best regards,
Ian.
-- 
http://mecenia.blogspot.com/