[squeak-dev] Squeak Constitution
siguctua at gmail.com
Sun Mar 7 18:33:12 UTC 2010
On 7 March 2010 18:06, keith <keith_hodges at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 7 Mar 2010, at 00:24, Matthew Fulmer wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 07:01:24PM -0500, Matthew Fulmer wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 04:38:22PM -0700, Ken G. Brown wrote:
> I would like to know what each candidate thinks about creating
> 'Terms of Reference' or 'Terms of Engagement' or
> 'Constitution' or 'Clear Governance Articles' or 'Rules and
> Regulations' for the Squeak Oversight Board, named something
> agreeable, along with a great mission statement.
> My opinion is that the members elected to the board should do
> what they say they will do in their election statements. The
> community votes a set of people to the board, and also each
> person's agenda. The sum of the board member's stated agendas is
> what the board should be doing.
> The board only serves year terms, and can be replaced rather
> easily, should the community want to. Thus, I believe the above
> is sufficient to ensure that the board adequately represents the
> An important corollary I feel is worth stating:
> If the board adequately represents the community, its actions
> will generally align with what the community as a whole wants.
> Or conversely and altogether more likely, the community will align with the
> board. Those who don't like what the board do can leave the community
> immediately since they don't have to wait for an election to vote with their
> You actually have to make an effort to ensure that this is not the default
> situation, to practice humility, communication and openness of process.
> In this year in particular the board has forgotten that it was originally
> conceived to advise and oversee. Its official direction as of this time last
> year was that it was not even sure if it should have any involvement in
> technical issues. To the extent that I ignored invitations to run for the
> board, because I didn't see that it had any relevance to myself as an active
> If you did want to attract individuals of significant status (e.g Dan
> Ingalls or the likes of Kent Beck) to be on the board, in a board like role,
> in an advisory nature, you will need a clear idea of what the board's role
> is, it cant be a release team at the same time as being a board. If you want
> the board to be a release team, then that needs to be made clear, and I
> could be wrong but I don't think that Kent Beck would be interested in
> hacking trunk. Conversely Edgar clearly feels a need to be elected to be
> heard on release issues.
> The current situation is that the board is arguably partisan to supporting
> the development of one particular direction which is inextricably tied in
> with the commercial interests of one particular company, and as a
> consequence another company with its own commercial interests has pulled out
> of supporting squeak, and has left the field.
> The board should be working to ensure that this type of situation does not
> happen, or at least to provide a round table for all interested parties to
> converse on equal terms.
> Squeak's viability as a platform stands and falls on the strength and
> maturity of the board as it's primary representation; not the individuals on
> the board, but the board as a political entity in and of itself.
> While the board has no terms of reference, and no vision statement, it has
> no identity in its own right, it is merely a collection of individuals
> running to their own individual agenda's, some more or less altruistic than
> others. In other words it's an accident waiting to happen again.
You know, the same event for one people could be an accident and for
others is a fortune.
As long as board makes a fortune for majority of people, i don't see
any problem here.
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
More information about the Squeak-dev