Yes, yes, yes. It was about the worst piece of communication I've done in
the longest time. Here's where I screwed it up:

* The title was completely wrong. I even managed to totally botch a
statement meant to say "I'm not so sure about the whole working-group idea
that I heard about because it sounds exclusionary, even if it gets conflicts
resolved," such that someone on the list thought I was being disrespectful
even though I didn't even intend to disagree, much less display any
disrespect. Mega-oops. This was my fault.

* I called it a "silent majority" because my gut says there's a Pareto
effect going on, and probably 20% or less of us actually post. I have no
proof nor a count of the readers on squeak-dev. I shouldn't have made a
statement like that without having some numbers to attach to it. I screwed
up here too. Totally my fault.

* Completely incorrect terminology in the text of my message suggested to
most readers that I was trying to bureaucratize the process whenever we
disagree about stuff and force people to go work things they don't want
to... which would be totally awful, and wouldn't work, because there's no
way to force anyone to do anything anyway!

* What I heard was, the working group is something they're planning, and I
screwed up and used the present tense in my email. Ooops. Sorry about that,
all.

* I don't know for sure about the working group thing, that's just something
I heard. So it's also hearsay, I don't actually know that for certain, and
so I really shouldn't have brought it up. This also is my fault. I'm really,
really sorry.

I was really, frankly, fishing for a way to figure out which bloody
namespace implementation I should go try to make work well enough to get it
into the Trunk. Since I don't care that much *how* it works, I just want to
figure out which approach is the most popular so that I minimize the risk
that I'm hacking on something no one will ever use. I didn't want to imply
that anyone should use this information to force anyone to do anything, etc,
I think _that would be awful_.  But I used a very poor set of words and
completely failed to express myself effectively. This is *my* fault.

I was just looking for a way of getting information about what people in the
community actually wanted. I was not trying to make people vote to decide
anything. "Resolution of Contentious Issues" is really the worst title I
could have chosen. I screwed up there. In my head I pictured polling people
and then discussing the results of the "opinion poll" on squeak-dev, to see
whether or not the increased visibility into the desires of the community
might get people aligning a bit more on what to go do.

I also want to be clear that _I don't want a working group_ or _any such
thing_.

I'm looking back at what I wrote and seeing how you could even easily read
into it that I was bashing the Squeak community while praising the Pharo
community. Not my intent at all, and I didn't intend to beat up on the Pharo
community either -- lots of really nice people doing really cool stuff there
too. In the past I've avoided trying to compare the projects too much,
because it's one of those things you can say and get both parties thinking
that you've been kicking their dogs even if that isn't your intent.

Wow! Man this one takes the cake. It's just an epic piece of poor
communication on my part.

My sincerest apologies to everyone who has read this this thread. I was
really just fishing to see if people would be interested in using the voting
tool to do an opinion poll. It was a random passing thought that I should
have let bake for a few more minutes. What I honestly should have done was
go to bed hours before I sent that. I've been on something of a programming
spree for a few days -- got some time off and just went nuts with a much
needed creative burst -- and I may have been pushing myself a little too
hard. Sleep is important, sometimes I forget about that when the bits are
lining up and I'm in the zone :(

I am self-imposing detention.

I will read what I write before I click send.
I will read what I write before I click send.
I will read what I write before I click send.
I will read what I write before I click send.
I will read what I write before I click send.
I will read what I write before I click send.
I will read what I write before I click send.
I will read what I write before I click send.
 --casey

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> >
>
>


-- 
Casey Ransberger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20110509/b89fafc4/attachment.htm