[squeak-dev] More Candidate Questions

Ken G. Brown kbrown at mac.com
Wed Mar 10 13:47:53 UTC 2010

At 10:58 AM +0100 3/10/10, Bert Freudenberg apparently wrote:
>On 10.03.2010, at 04:46, Colin Putney wrote:
>> On 2010-03-09, at 2:40 AM, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>>>> I am interested in what the new Candidates say, or don't say, and not what the previous board or board members or vocal minorities say.
>>>> Thank you for your responses.
>>>> You are so far one of the 3 out of 11 Candidates who have responded.
>>>> Ken G. Brown
>>> You really want a "me too" response?
>> Hey it's politics. The point of the question wasn't to solicit information, but to get you to go on record. Then, if for some reason the SFC project doesn't pan out, it's evidence that you haven't kept your word.
>> Colin
>Thanks for explaining. I honestly couldn't get it.
>Ken - I'm an engineer. Not a politician, not even a manager. Squeak to me has much more to do with friendship than politics. I'm not running for the board to gain power, but because friends help each other out, and in my mind the more experienced should take a larger burden.
>If you're looking for a politician, do not vote for me.
>- Bert -

I too am an engineer and actually have almost zero interest in politics, so I think Colin is completely off the mark with respect to my intentions. The reason I asked my questions was in the hope that Candidates would respond in a way that I could determine who I wished to vote for. If this is politics though, I guess then I'm guilty.

>From this engineer's point of view, I don't think the way the Squeak Oversight Board (SOB) works is engineered very well at the moment, and I have seen ample experimental evidence that shows that.
I want to see people on the board who are interested in engineering a solid SOB with clear and transparent-to-the-community 'Rules of Governance' or 'Constitution'. I think of this as the well defined and published-for-all-to see, API for the SOB with a good set of tests and checks and balances as well. This would hopefully ensure that next year's SOB would work the same or better than last year's, independent of the individual members at the time.

If the SOB were a piece of software you were designing, I don't think you would preferentially make it a spaghetti-coded black box that was allowed to randomly do whatever it happened to feel like at any particular moment when you give it some inputs, and with no confidence that the next time those same inputs are given, that the results will be the same. I would also like to be able to easily look inside at any time to see how things are implemented, see how things are going and have been going. eg. financial accounts, minutes of the meetings. I would like to see a well engineered SOB built for the future with the best principles, in 'the best possible way'. I don't want to see the SOB built from the point of view of 'the simplest thing that could possibly work' and have to be redone every year.

You may have noted Ken Causey's recent email in response to Gary Dunn <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2010-March/146122.html>. It seems that others are also unclear about the way the SOB works, even Candidates who will have to deal with it.

If you or any other Candidates are for a well engineered SOB built for the future, while minimizing politics and legal mumbo jumbo, then my votes are for you.

Ken G. Brown

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list