At 10:27 AM -0600 3/10/10, Chris Muller apparently wrote:
>Hi Ken, I just saw your message here and feel compelled to heed your
>calls to respond!

Yay! Thx.

>Let me first just say, with me you'd be getting a freshman, not an
>experienced board member.  When it comes to technical or usability
>issues about Squeak, I have quite a bit of opinion and input to
>contribute.  However, in terms "building a legal presence", I only
>know what I _want_, not necessarily how to go about it.  My knowledge
>of, and interest in, legal matters is very low.  I am more interested
>in the outcome of these processes; a Squeak that external entities
>like corporations can feel safe to use (I've always felt it was
>legally safe to use, but corporations must be more conservative).
>Legal wrangling takes time away from technical wrangling, but the
>results it produces (has produced!) is very important and I will be
>happy to voice my support with the majority when it comes to legal
>matters, since I know we all pretty much have the same goals w.r.t.
>this.
>
>> 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.
>
>In terms of a Constitution, I must confess that I am not sure what
>would be in it.  Although I would not _oppose_ a constitution that was
>short and general enough to fit around what we all know to be our
>current direction, I do question its purpose.  I would not be
>interested in spending a lot of time and resources wrangling on its
>words.  For whatever differences that exist in the community, we have
>medium to work them out; this list.  I am interested in parties
>working out their differences based on our continued discussion on
>this list.
>
>Even if we had one, I also wonder what remediation of our differences
>a constitution would provide that we don't already have.  What if one
>or more members of the board weren't abiding by the constitution?  As
>I see it, there are two choices:
>
>  - Community likes what's being done, constitution is out of date and
>needs updated.
>  - Community doesn't like what's being done, but board member(s) can
>be recalled today anyway, if they are bad-enough can't they?

I don't know, can they?
This is the point, there doesn't seem to be any way of knowing what the SOB might do other than what they decide at any point which could be anything.
And is there any view of where the money goes? Is there any money? Where is the bank account. Is there one? Who can sign on behalf of the SOB? Who will sign the contract with SFC?
And on and on.

Any non-profit group I have had anything to do with seems to have some certain basics in place that seem to be missing in our case with the SOB. At least in my limited view.

>In either case, what is the net-plus provided by a static document?

Perhaps a completely static document may not be the best at this point, unless it were a really good one.

And don't get me wrong, I am not in favour of a bunch of time wasting legalese or politispeak either, but I think some real good fundamental guidelines would go a long ways.

Ken G. Brown

>To me, "constitution" is a reflection of each of our own personal
>constitutions; where we've said we want to go.  While I'm not opposed
>to writing some general values down on paper, I don't currently
>understand how it would help resolve any differences that might come
>up, and I would be somewhat concerned whether such a document would be
>used as a political tool that taxes community resources.
>
>  - Chris
>
>
>
>
>On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Ken G. Brown <kbrown at mac.com> wrote:
> > 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
>>
>>