Just to clarify, I am not against survey-style polling; in fact I am
greatly interested in counting.  However, the way this was presented,
as a "resolution of contentious issues," while at the same time,
itself, being contentious with divisive, comparative language; that
approach will not be effective to garner my support.

I would only participate if I were sure the poll would not serve as a
wedge to divide our community / communities.

However, maybe not, because perhaps the emergent phenomena of "no
consensus" should be viewed _as_ a consensus; that the proposal could
not pass muster with enough of the bright minds here for action to be
warranted and, therefore, the choice not do do it was and is the
correct one.

 - Chris



On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
> Casey,
>
>> I've seen a few rounds of discussion around contentious issues. Namespaces
>> are a fantastic example. Some of these issues, (I'll call them Oddballs,)
>> just don't like getting resolved. The pattern is that almost everyone who
>> speaks out has a different idea about how to #doIt. The conversation usually
>> goes in a long circle, and then gets garbage collected when everyone gets
>> too fatigued with the debate to continue it.
>
> Vigorous debate is not only normal, but essential, for a successful
> software development community.
>
>> I often wonder what the silent majority think about Oddball issues. We
>
> Did the "silent majority" have a silent vote, and that's how you know
> they were the "majority" of something?
>
>> I'm thinking of this in part after a conversation that happened at the first
>> SSUG meeting. We talked about how we tend to argue in circles in squeak-dev,
>
> We "tend to argue in circles" in squeak-dev.  That's ridiculous.
>
>> while the Pharo folk set up a "working group" to make decisions about stuff
>
> They do?  I searched the Pharo list for "working group" but did not
> find any announcements.  Can you tell us more?  Who are they, what did
> they work on, and what was the final "solution"?
>
> As for Squeak, squeak-dev _is_ the working group.
>
>> like this, and then as a result get to make progress, even on issues which
>
> "Progress?"  That's a very subjective term..
>
>> are contentious in their community. I don't know if we actually need or want
>> a "working group," whatever that is, but it would be nice to _have a pulse
>> on the desires of the broader Squeak community._
>
> I would say, if the pulse isn't clear, this is the place to find it.
> You can poll here, our community is small enough to be able to do that
> by just reading the responses of the folks who care enough to voice
> their opinion.  The "silent majority" has no voice other than their
> code, which must be good enough to lure our community into change.
>
>> two problems a) contention, and b) no workable implementation, it would be
>> nice to get some of the contention out of the way so that I can quit arguing
>> on a mailing list and #doIt.
>
> I think you know, there's plenty to work on that requires no arguing.  :)
>
>  - Chris
>