Em 28-06-2009 23:32, Igor Stasenko escreveu:
> (...)
>> This discussion resembles other inside Fedora community: what should be
>> in/out of a distro and how to maintain it. There are three proposals:
>> Squeak, Pharo, Cuis. I'll tell you what I don't like in Pharo/Cuis
>> proposals: they resemble me Brazilian way of solving things: you have
>> something that's just not working as you wish. Instead of correcting the
>> circumstances that lead to the problem, people start a new project saying:
>> "now everything will be all right". Later the so called solution is
>> suffering from the same problems and people launches a newer project to fix
>> what went wrong with the predecessors.
>>      
>
> This is what is called development: learn on mistakes and move forward.
> An opposite to this is stalling: do nothing, eveyone is happy. End of story.
>
>    
No, it's just spinning around. Why? Just take a look at the statements 
of Pharo and Cuis. They clearly point out what people think is wrong 
with Squeak.org but doesn't have a single word about how to avoid the 
situations to repeat in future.

First, I am not reactionary. I think that if something is not working, 
them it is necessary to move ahead. I've seem Pharo and I particularly 
enjoy their proposal. But when you see the project roadmap... there's 
much to be done. What are the concrete, tangible schedules? What are the 
resources to achieve them? Will the same people involved in Squeak.org 
be contributing to Pharo? If they're splitting teams where they'll find 
people to care about real world issues like support & maintenance?

Second, much of the manifestations of the spin-off projects show non 
satisfaction with current Squeak.org leadership. But leadership was 
voted... Besides, we at LA know where "benevolent dictatures" lead to...

>> And there are 3 projects running in
>> parallel. Redundancy of effort, high costs (even in terms of dedication of
>> people struggling to keep pace in what is happening around) and futile
>> disputes are the only results.
>>
>>      
>
> How many companies in the world producing a cars in parallel?
> Should they merge under a single banner&  start producing a single,
> good for everyone car?
> Or should they stop producing a cars at all, because all of them would
> break someday, or get obsolete?
> Imagine, how many money&  man hours could be saved! :)
>    
In fact, there are really a number of manufactures producing vehicles in 
parallel. But whenever their business loose meaning they merge or even 
close (unless some government crazily injects billions of bucks in their 
broken businesses).

The key question is: "the meaning of the business". What is the size of 
the market? What are the available resources? What are the future 
scenarios? Where people want to be in the next five years?

Squeak and derivatives scenario: how many people/organizations are using 
it? What is the "potential market" for Squeak? What are the available 
resources? What are the chances of filling the market space and how to 
do that?
>    
>> I think there's nothing fundamentally wrong with squeak. The question is how
>> to organize things. How to classify things as "core", "contributed" and "3rd
>> party". How to keep things up to date. How to obsolete things.
>>
>> It may be boring, but I think that many things could be formalized.
>>
>> First there are the leadership meetings on Wednesdays. The agenda of the
>> meetings as well as their minutes could be placed at the
>> www.squeak.org/Foundation. There should be a place where people could
>> suggest topics to be included in the agenda. I know that much has been done
>> via e-mail lists but for people (like me) who have to deal with large
>> amounts of email these lists may be unpractical. Besides, keeping things
>> public is a good way for letting people decide if they want or don't want to
>> use squeak.
>>
>>      
> You are free to post agenda items at any time. Either in blog comments
> area, or here on the list.
> We are in need for your proposals, and declaring this constantly.
>    
Well... I think I've presented some administrative proposals in my 
e-mails. The next paragraphs have at least 3 proposals: responsibility 
delegation regarding maintenance, establishment of mechanisms for 
evaluating suitability of packages to be included in official distros 
and seek for $$$ support. As they appear they're out of order because I 
think that 1rst thing for a leadership is to ensure enough resources 
(so, $ and gathering people comes first), delegation follows.

As I don't believe in dictatorship, at first I present ideas. If the 
ideas are not welcome, no meaning in proceeding to implementation  
suggestions.
>    
>> As this discussion (about future of Squeak&  Pharo) made clear, it is urgent
>> to define what is in and what is out of Squeak. Since there's a real concern
>> about back compatibility and as things are getting big and sometimes
>> non-maintained, I would suggest that documenting things is essential.
>>
>> In my opinion, it would be interesting to create a mechanism for
>> responsibility delegation regarding to maintenance. Regarding to
>> distributions it would be interesting to create a mechanism for evaluating
>> the suitability of packages to be included (like looking that the packages
>> don't have dependencies outside the distribution and things that can lead to
>> a situation where it is impossible to assure their maintenance). I don't
>> think that a situation where a single person is responsible for a critical
>> part of a distribution is acceptable: whenever such situation is identified
>> the leadership should seek for additional people.
>>
>> In my opinion, it would be good if some sort of financial/corporate support
>> could be granted. It would allow to have people involved in "non exciting"
>> tasks. Again: corporate support doesn't translate in any kind of servitude
>> and it can help to grow the universe of Squeak users. Besides, good
>> marketing is essential: if you get good media it is more likely you'll be
>> granted more and better projects... more people will pay attention to you.
>>
>> Just a last thing about croquet. It was meant to rock but didn't... I tell:
>> (1) poor documentation (how in hell I use it???) (2) lack of marketing
>> (yeah... even inside university good marketing is essential). Many people
>> just didn't figured out what it was meant to (3) performance issues
>> (intensive use of GL, etc).
>>
>>      
>
> You know, all of this is good: Pointing at mistakes, drawing a new direction.
> But for a success, there is one little thing is missing: where are
> those people who stop talking and start doing something?
> I can tell you, but i think you know it yourself.
>    
Yes. I know it. That's why I'm spending time in order to discuss things 
and present suggestions. Perhaps suggestions are not clear enough.

IMHO, I think that Squeak.org should be seeking for objectives 
(medium/long term), support and popularization. I give you an example: 
about 26 years ago people at UvA (Amsterdam, NL) decided to invest in 
the study of knowledge modeling and related research. Their leadership 
at that time (Prof. Dr. Wielinga, Prof. Dr. Breuker and Prof. Dr. 
Schreiber) elaborated an action plan (formalized in a set of projects) 
and got support within EU (ESPRIT projects, a good number of them) and 
companies (IBM among them). The ESPRIT support lasted for more than 15 
years (I currently don't know the state of things) and many really 
interesting things came to life. SWI-Prolog is one of them.

> No offense.
>
>    
>> Good night all,
>>
>> CdAB
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>      
>
>    
No offense taken.

CdAB
>
>    

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20090629/0587cf36/attachment.htm