<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
+1 to all of Ramon's posts in this topic. Right on target.<br>
<br>
Josh<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Ramon Leon wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:1e7b5a0907142236o68504a7t1cba5966d2b9beb5@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Which was earned, by developing and demonstrating a number of projects
including LevelPlayingField, and then by going through protocol and
writing a proposal and putting it to the board, which had otherwise
decided to cancel any further development that wasn't spoon.
Andreas has done none of the above, he hasn't put a proposal forward,
and he hasn't replaced the release team.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Andreas *ran* his campaign on improving the Squeak process and got
more votes than anyone. That's all the authority he needs to get
involved in changing the process.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">If that is the case then we are all wasting our time, I am not involved
in this for the sake of a pissing match. I proposed a vision, the board
accepted, that's it, end of.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Obviously, it isn't. Other people are free to waste their time
however they see fit.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">If they change their mind then so be it, but that puts out a very
troubling message. (A bit late now I fear)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I've seen no one deeply troubled by any of this except you.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Not at all. The imposition is not on them, it is on us, that we as the
"squeak" mother branch, as ratified by the board, undertake to make
every piece of progress we develop available in a documented, and
packaged form, that other forks can make use of if they want to.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
"If you build it they will come" doesn't work if you can't find anyone
to help you build it.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Furthermore with the use of automated testing tools we will even make it
possible to load and test our contributions in your fork or derived
image for you.
Finally releases will be assembled out of completed pieces according to
a specified plan, that other forks can examine and use parts of if they
want to.
We will propose specific projects, delivered as externally managed and
publicly shared projects to move "squeak" forward but the results of
those developments will be deployable in all squeak forks. (e.g.
closures, improved HTTPClient, MC1.6, MC1.7, Logging, Rio,
Sake/Packages, SUnit, Morphic3.0?)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Yea, so your swinging for the fence wanting the home run. Good for
you, but don't criticize those who are being pragmatic and going for
the base hit that is known to work. If you only allow contributions
through Mantis, then you are telling most people not to contribute and
to go away. It seems pretty clear that most people just want to use
Monticello and check in code. Fit the process to the people, not the
people to the process. Andreas is being pragmatic.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Since most of their work is not done on changing the kernel, that
doesn't really matter.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
You can't guarantee that.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">But it is our primary goal, to update and refactor the kernel and make
it as easy as possible for all forks to take advantage of the stuff we
offer them on a plate.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
We who? I don't see an army behind you, but I have seen more positive
response to his proposal than to yours. Yours is so complex most
people apparently understand what the hell it is. That you
continually keep having to restate your vision should tell you
something. You're so deep into your process that you're unable to
compromise or understand that not everyone is trying to rid the world
of forks. Andreas has praised your tools many times, that's common
ground, build on that.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">We are not developing, we are integrating already completed stuff.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
What you are not doing is listening.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Again with the presumption that you're right and he's wrong. Give it
a rest, if his idea sucks it'll fail in due course; if it has merit
then it'll succeed and he'll get people contributing to Squeak. He's
not trying to solve the problems of every other fork, he's trying to
make it easier to contribute to Squeak. That might not fit in with
your grand scheme, but if you can't sell him on your scheme, then so
be it, let him be. He was elected by the community to do this; he's
not just some random dude trying to piss of Keith.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">He was not elected to do this, he was elected to a position on the board
whose remit is to liase and encourage, and to be consulted on vision and
direction.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Yes, he was elected to do this, that's what got him so many votes.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The board is a political body, it is not supposed to be heavy handed at
all. The teams that it may choose to ratify are the ones that do the work.
If Andreas wants to be on a release team, then he should step down from
the board first.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
You cannot claim to derive authority from the board and then protest
its authority.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Obviously, some people agree with him, respect him, and find it easier
to contribute with his method. If your process was so easy and
simple, you'd have everyone doing it your way already. Since they
aren't, you have to ask yourself why?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Look how many fixes are on mantis and have got scripts attached.
That is my way
Keith
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Yes, that is your way, and people are clearly unsatisfied with it and
what they perceive to be a lack of contributions from the community.
You say *we* an awful lot but from what I can gather *we* usually just
means you and Matthew. The community is bigger than the release team
and they need an easy way to contribute *anything they want*, not just
well tested well documented bug fixes submitted to Mantas as change
sets.
If the current process worked so well, Andreas wouldn't be trying out
an alternative one trying to re-inspire the community. In a sense,
you're wanting to be in charge of the release branch and Andreas is
trying to setup an unstable branch where contribution is easy and much
less formal, a simple check-in with comments should suffice. What's
wrong with having both?
Ramon Leon
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://onsmalltalk.com">http://onsmalltalk.com</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>