>
>> If you don't like process X, the way to persuade the community not  
>> to follow Andreas is to provide an alternative. Keith, it sounds to  
>> me like you've got clear ideas about what a better alternative  
>> would be, and have the tools realize that vision
>
> I think this is the way to go!
> Clear ideas! no aggravations!


Gonzalo,

I think you missed the background of this conversation. I already did  
provide an alternative. I wrote a proposal, I put it to the board, the  
board approved it, and I worked on it for 3 years. Then without any  
discussion or warning, Andreas overruled, (something which, if the  
board had a constitution would surely be unconstitutional) and in  
doing so scuppered the process we had, causing a lot of bad feeling.  
The last two times this happened on this scale the consequences were  
off the scale, and this should not be accepted ever.

The bob process has already been undermined, by "trunk" as things  
whose integrity the previous process depended on have been re-directed  
and diluted, because everyone is thinking in terms of evolving moving  
targets rather than having regular actual tested releases, with a  
migration path between them.

There is no point in doing any further work on this, if that work  
becomes a competition. Competitions have losers.

Simply put, we looked at the problem of forking, and we formulated an  
approach that "might" just help. We didn't know if it would work, but  
without it squeak as a viable movement is dead. It will degenerate  
into nothing more than a bunch of isolated lumps of code, with a  
couple of programmers hacking away at each one.

The answer is not to develop another fork.

The answer fundamentally requires every person's contribution to be  
valued highly and harnessed, through being able to support the notion  
of multiple lines of innovation that cross fertilise. "trunk" by being  
one line of innovation, and by throwing away 3 years of work shakes  
these principles to their core.

Until the bad feeling is resolved, and the board gets a constitution  
the community is unable to function, and has shown that it is unable  
to function. Indeed it should be considered emotionally dangerous to  
participate in.

Squeak currently is just a lump of code in the hands of one or two  
gifted programmers, and they will bung us a release over the fence  
every now and then.

Every goal that has been promised in the past few years, kernel image,  
build your own squeak, atomic loading, has failed to happen. Because  
these visions have all required tools and innovation of the process to  
facilitate them.  If you develop those tools and innovate the process,  
you get overruled by people who just want a new fork.

Pharo, showed us how it shouldn't be done, and now we are just copying  
them.

regards

Keith
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20100125/e03f54a4/attachment.htm