2009/7/4 Keith Hodges <keith_hodges at yahoo.co.uk>:
> Ian Trudel wrote:
>> This is surprising that the release team hasn't been consulted on the
>> back of this idea.
> Thats what I thought too, but surprising isn't the word I used.

Errare humanum est.

>>  The board is newly elected and hopefully they will
>> take such things into consideration next time.
>>
> There is a high attrition rate among those who have tried being in the
> release team. The new process was supposed to help with that, by moving
> to a more automated system.

Automated system always sounds good. Now, if only the system could
contribute to itself...

>> However, as far as I understand, the new community development model
>> is experimental and open to re-evaluation by all means.
> Oh right, where does it say that?

That's from my understanding. Can anybody from the board could confirm
or deny this statement?

>> It's not time to get upset or offended by such things.
> Its a bit late for that.

It's really important as a community effort to inject some positivism
at the moment. And your effort is as important as others in this
regard. You're not alone with frustrations. However, if we could leave
the emotions at the doors, we're likely to be able to discuss as grown
up. It comes to a point that your emotions are overwhelming in every
message you write.

Can we move on, please?

> Ian I have made my view quite clear, the new model replaces ALL the work
> of the release team with something entirely innappropriate. Please read
> my previous email for a detailed explanation.

This is where I think you're completely wrong. The release team is
still relevant even with the new community development process. The
official releases are ultimately in the hands of the release team. And
you would probably have a live communication with others about how to
integrate the release process in this new approach, if you were less
busy with your emotions that is.

Besides, you're also missing the trick when it comes to contribution.
On one side, there is quick and simple community development process,
based on MC repositories, and on the other side, some matis+installer
mantis+...+whatever. While the later might better fit to the release
process, it is not the case when it comes to contributions.

2009/7/4 Keith Hodges <keith_hodges at yahoo.co.uk>:
> I expressly asked Andreas and others not to discuss release team issues
> on squeak-dev, because my employer reads squeak-dev.
>
> Every email that I send to squeak-dev risks my employer asking "Is Keith
> really focused on delivering what I am paying him for". The answer
> currently is no.

You cannot discuss about release team issues on squeak-dev because
your employer is snooping but you openly admit that you're not doing
what you're paid for? Azooooo?!

> However, since I have now seen the true colours of the board and those
> involed, I think I can go and do some real paid work now.

You're judging them a tad too quickly.

> You know you could actually read the 3.11 documentation

Thanks for the links.


2009/7/4 Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de>:

> Yes, without any doubt that was a mistake. I was trying to avoid delaying
> too much and move things forward and in the process I overlooked this
> important bit of communication. I already apologized for that to Keith.

There is so much one can apologize for. One sincere apology should
have been enough. Keith should get over it now. And then he could talk
with you about how to properly integrate the release process with the
new community development process. =)

Regards,
Ian.
-- 
http://mecenia.blogspot.com/