[squeak-dev] Squeak Oversight Board Election 2010!

Ken Causey ken at kencausey.com
Thu Feb 18 00:39:07 UTC 2010

On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 17:51 -0600, Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez wrote:
> El jue, 18-02-2010 a las 00:14 +0100, Göran Krampe escribió:
> > Dear Squeakers,
> > 
> > Approximately one year has passed and it is hight time for us to kick 
> > another Squeak Oversight Board Election into gear!
> Honest question, in the sight of the known discussions about the current
> board.
> 1. Will some kind of Terms of Reference will be created to
> limit/establish/clear the responsibilities/powers/obligations of the new
> board?

We brought this issue to the community here soon after Keith suggested
it to us.  Frankly, other than Keith and 1-2 other people there seemed
to be no interest.

The reality is that this is a very complex issue and it is impossible
for the Oversight Board to do this alone.  It is necessary to work out
some way to include the entire community in this process.

The current Oversight Board decided that first of all that there was no
real desire within the community as a whole to artificially limit the
Oversight Board, and secondly even if we wanted to do it (and we are not
in fact totally opposed, we are just not clear at all on the details) it
was not possible for us to complete it in a realistic fashion with the
other tasks we had and the time left in the year.  

> 2. Will some kind of gentleman agreement will be proposed for this new
> board (and of course subsequent ones) that avoids that the new board
> throws the previous board work and objectives for their new ones (and by
> implication, upsetting people that worked for the previous objectives).

'avoids that the new board throws the previous board work and
objectives': there is in fact no truth to this since the current board
is made up of many members of the previous board and there has been no
objection from the members of the previous board to decisions made
regarding 3.11/trunk.

> 3. What will avoid that each new board makes from squeak its own
> playground that will end with the board term. In the long term this will
> kill the community, as we have seen this year.

You, by electing the same members again.  But frankly I don't get this
reasoning at all, and I don't think I'm alone.  Yes we created a new
process and by doing this as the Board this did in effect supplant the
existing process.  But there was absolutely no reason that Keith could
not continue to pursue his projects exactly in the fashion he was the
day before we announced Trunk.  We were and are in fact interested in
his work but it just didn't seem to be reaching the point where the
community as a whole was willing to participate in the process quickly
enough and we felt that for the time being it was better to inject a
more conservative process that would involve the community sooner than
later.  (I say 'we' many times here but of course any opinions are

Also I very much disagree that the community has been killed.  It seems
far more vibrant to me in the  last 6 months than in the year or more
previous to that.  Of course, I've done no real measurement and this is
just my impression.

> 4. What about the concerns of people about the members with voting
> power. What prevents that in some election:
> 	4.1 only or mostly voters are the ones happy with the current board,
> perpetuating the same members of the current board in the new board

The voters, by voting.  If you are worried about the majority stifling
the minority then I see your point on one hand, but on the other I
don't.  What really do you think the Oversight Board does?  Technically
in practice the only enforcement policy we have is through manipulation
of the server hosting our various Internet based services, this is in
fact never used.  All we can ultimately do is express our opinions and
make our work available.  Yes, by having this label 'Squeak Oversight
Board' our voices are louder, but you can still not listen.

> 	4.2 everyone votes, even the ones that haven't interest (economical,
> financial, educative, code donated or contributed) or a real, earned,
> right to vote

People earned a right to vote by having earned the communities
acceptance that they have a right to an opinion.  We are in fact liberal
with this pretty much giving someone a vote as long as they ask, but
practically speaking the voting list has changed very very little in the
last couple of years after Squeak People pretty much listed the entire
active community.  This is just not a realistic fear.

> 5. What about the "constitution" of Squeak, so many of this problems can
> be fully avoided.

Please feel free to write one and submit it for consideration. 

> That is what comes to mind right now. 

Ken Causey

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20100217/49a04b4e/attachment.pgp

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list