[squeak-dev] 4.1 release tasks

Josh Gargus josh at schwa.ca
Fri Mar 19 21:33:41 UTC 2010

On Mar 19, 2010, at 12:46 PM, Ken G. Brown wrote:

> It is not clear to me who on the board has the authority to ask me to take it down?
> All 7 perhaps unanimously like you mentioned was the signing requirement for the SOB? Or a majority 4/7? A designated member in charge of communications? It is unclear to me who even can speak on behalf of the SOB.

I don't understand that the point of this "experiment" is.  I'll take a guess: are you trying to demonstrate that if the SOB doesn't have a set of explicit rules about how to act in such situations, then some asshole can undermine the SOB's leadership and generally disrupt the community?  Maybe that's true, but there are two things that you're missing:

1) It's not clear whether it's even possible to create a set of rules that would be 100% asshole-resistant.  Certainly nobody has proposed any.

2) Over the 12 years I've been in this community, we haven't had problems with assholes trying to break the community for the sheer hell of it.

Maybe I've totally missed the point of your "experiment".  If so, please enlighten us.  What is your hypothesis?  What data are you gathering, and how will it confirm or deny your hypothesis?  Why do you think you're being helpful?

In the meantime, I add myself to the growing list of people asking you to take the blog down.  Please.


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list