Hi Keith,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Keith Hodges <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:keith_hodges@yahoo.co.uk">keith_hodges@yahoo.co.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Bert,<br>
<div class="im">> I promised to you privately to bring this up in this week's board<br>
> meeting. I did, and we discussed it (alone, alas, as you refused to<br>
> join the meeting).<br>
</div>You make this sound as though this is my fault that I will not attend<br>
the board meeting, au contraire. I stated clearly to you that I would<br>
not attend because I feel intimidated in such a forum, when there are<br>
people on the board who have already demonstrated (publically with<br>
witnesses) an ability to be condescending and rude, so I do not feel<br>
like putting myself in a position to be abused thank you very much.<br>
<br>
It is because the board has failed to act in a gentle overseeing and<br>
supporting manner, which is what I believed that the board was intended<br>
to be, that it is necessary for the board to establish their terms of<br>
engagement FIRST before any other discussion can take place.<br>
<br>
Individual members of the board have been rude and unprofessional, and<br>
members that were elected to liaise and supervise have done nothing of<br>
the sort. How come the board has been in existence for several years and<br>
yet has not felt a need to interfere in anything at all before. They<br>
even let the previous release team leader disappear for months and no<br>
one dreamed of taking over without speaking to him personally first.<br>
<br>
Lets be clear, you can leave all your self-justification aside over the<br>
release issue for now because it is not relevant. The way this was<br>
handled has been an unmitigated disaster. This is the issue I asked you<br>
to discuss at the board meeting.<br>
<br>
I asked you to discuss the fact that the board needs to establish its<br>
terms of reference, and its role, so that this doesn't happen again.<br>
<br>
Issues such as whether a board member has a remit to interfere with an<br>
appointed team and to what extent. Should board members participate in<br>
the teams that they are liaising with or should they run the teams they<br>
supervise? (If the later is the case then the team leaders should be on<br>
the board by default) Whether a team can be sacked without being told<br>
they are sacked, or whether there is any protocol at all, and under what<br>
circumstances should a board member be required to step down. You were<br>
all elected to liaise and supervise not to cause agro in any shape or form.<br>
<br>
Did you discuss this at your meeting?<br>
<br>
By default the current set up enables any existing team leader to be<br>
subjected to additional "leadership" from a newly elected board<br>
member. This then puts any potential team in the position of having<br>
two leaders, which then puts unfair tensions on the team. Two many cooks<br>
will spoil the broth, its a foregone conclusion.<br>
<br>
When I said that 3.10-build was called 3.10-build I meant it, I didn't<br>
need Andreas to cause, confusion among other contributors. He should<br>
have spent time and effort in his elected role recruiting support for<br>
the existing team, and the existing jobs list, instead he set out to<br>
compete from the beginning. As I said before the result of this approach<br>
was a forgone conclusion; doomed from the start.<br>
<br>
Why have you not asked Craig to clarify the process for contributing to<br>
squeak 5.0. Craig told the board that squeak 5.0 would be released 11<br>
months or more ago, where is the visibility and the agro there? Seems a<br>
bit like double standards to me.<br>
<br>
If you want a team to make regular reports , then ask them, don't just<br>
make this up as you go along. You are not elected to make brash and<br>
in-informed decisions, and Andreas was not elected to take over the<br>
release process but to motivate it and to move it forward. The only<br>
motivation I got from Andreas was him telling me that 3.10-build should<br>
be called 3.11-alpha, that's not motivating, that's called not listening.<br>
<div class="im">> The minutes went not really into detail, but it's the second<br>
> paragraph. The gist was that we do watch how the discussion and<br>
> contributions here unfold.<br>
><br>
> In the "8 weeks" you mention the board did speak to the Release Team<br>
> leader, which is Matthew.<br>
> Maybe the release team list would have been better - something to keep<br>
> in mind for the future (or maybe release discussion should happen on<br>
> squeak-dev, we are too small a community for too many lists).<br>
</div>So why has the board made 6 yes 6 lists for releases? see<br>
<a href="http://lists.squeakfoundation.org" target="_blank">lists.squeakfoundation.org</a> , when we had consolidated them down to 1.<br>
<div class="im">> The fact is that we did talk to the Release Team, but could still not<br>
> get a coherent picture of where the release actually was.<br>
</div>Total rubbish, some of those attending the board meeting knew full well<br>
that I had started documenting the process, because it was essentially<br>
complete, using videos on vimeo so the coherent picture for which you<br>
were allegedly looking was literally taking shape at the time you were<br>
meeting, and would have been a couple of days away at the time. I was<br>
making the videos in order to make sure everything was easily visible<br>
and working before our scheduled slot on industry misinterpretations<br>
(never was there a more aptly named podcast).<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Personally I find videos more than unsatisfactory. They require I spend the entire length of the video in passive viewing of the material. The material is unsearchable and effectively unindexable ("scroll to about 5 minutes in" is not a URL). Whereas a couple of well-written web pages are terrific. A good example is the Pharo pages as mentioned by Serge in the Inbox thread, <a href="http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2009-August/138261.html">http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2009-August/138261.html</a>. Here are the links:</div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; "><pre style="font-family: monospace; margin-left: 3em; font-size: 13px; ">
<a href="http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/IntegrationProcessDescription" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 96); ">http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/IntegrationProcessDescription</a>
<a href="http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/HowToContribute" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 96); ">http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/HowToContribute</a></pre></span></div><div>If someone could document your process in this form I expect a lot of the current miscommunication would conclude. I had made an offer to you to help produce such documentation but realistically I'm not able to as my plate is too full, for which I apologise. But if you or anyone else could try and produce something analogous to the above, concise, comprehensible and usable as a script, IMO that would really help.</div>
<div><br></div><div>best</div><div>Eliot</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><br>
You didn't make any effort at all, I was in irc all of the time for all<br>
of the 8 weeks I mentioned, and Ken Brown managed to get a clear picture<br>
of what was going on with a little effort.<br>
<br>
Remember the board is elected to liase and advise so where is this<br>
liasing? One discussion with matthew at a time when he was having self<br>
doubts ("why dont we just use pharo") really doesn't count as liason. I<br>
might be wrong but a liason includes an ongoing dialog.<br>
<br>
By the way, since Randal had stolen Matthew to work on 4.0, it doesn't<br>
wash that you asked Matthew about the status of 3.11 when at the board's<br>
behest he was working on (or supposed to be) 4.0 and the relicencing at<br>
the time.<br>
<div class="im">> The new process you developed did certainly not get much traction in<br>
> the community.<br>
</div>Then it is your job to encourage and facilitate that traction, not<br>
destroy it. I can't do everything.<br>
In actual fact all that board members did was grumble, argue about, and<br>
generally confuse the release numbering.<br>
Oh and as I pointed out about they acquired the 3.11 team "leader" to<br>
work on 4.0.<br>
<div class="im">> Perhaps it is too alien - as I said before, people do need time to<br>
> change their habits.<br>
</div>How is the process that was used for 3.9 and 3.10 too alien, (submit<br>
your fixes to mantis) we have been using it for years?<br>
<div class="im">> And they might still adopt it, the trunk model is not really in<br>
> conflict with automatic image building and testing, as you well know.<br>
</div>Yes it is, because it moves development to a moving target, not a number<br>
of discrete steps based upon fixed targets that give us a migration<br>
path. I can't do anything with trunk, its only use is in building an<br>
image based upon trunk, but I dont want an image based upon trunk, I<br>
want an image based upon 3.10. The whole point is to get away from<br>
building one image, and to facilitate all the forks to move forward. I<br>
cannot harvest trunk into my production images, because the knowledge of<br>
the component parts of whatever is in trunk has not been packaged<br>
appropriately. This is a management decision, but trunk doesn't have any<br>
management.<br>
<br>
3.10 + process = 3.11<br>
3.11 + process = 3.12<br>
etc<br>
<div class="im">> But we felt there needed to be a way to make contributing simple, and<br>
> have visible progress.<br>
</div>We had a way, we had just automated the mantis contribution process. You<br>
can see what status each fix is at in colour, and we were very close to<br>
automated testing go live.<br>
<br>
You moved the goal posts, since the existing proposal stated that the<br>
3.11 effort was not about producing an image. Again we are back to the<br>
board's terms of engagement, can they pull the rug out from a team like<br>
that, without requiring a competing proposal to be written, published,<br>
discussed and voted on according to a protocol.<br>
<div class="im">> The trunk model is a way to enable people to again participate in the<br>
> Squeak development process, and that seems to work.<br>
</div>You = the board didn't even give matthew or I access to<br>
<a href="http://squeakfoundation.org" target="_blank">squeakfoundation.org</a>. We already had a trunk on <a href="http://squeaksource.com/311" target="_blank">squeaksource.com/311</a><br>
What was new about trunk? Nothing, but you didn't even ask "do we<br>
already have a trunk"?<br>
<br>
Come on its not hard, I am in irc all the time, you didn't even try. At<br>
what point did Andreas think, eureka, we need a trunk repository, I<br>
wonder if we already have one, I know I will ask?<br>
<br>
But you have no management, no vision, no goals, or planning in place.<br>
Each initiative should be undertaken in in separate set of repositories,<br>
not one confused and unmanaged repository. You have visibility, true,<br>
visible confusion, and a single image as a result. ALL the work you put<br>
into trunk will have to be redone from scratch by someone else, in<br>
exactly the same way as all the work the pharo guys have done will have<br>
to be sifted through and harvested manually into squeak. In the same way<br>
as all the work that Edgar did on his SLII he is now having to sift<br>
through and harvest into trunk. All that trunk is doing is making more<br>
work for someone else by making the discontinuities between steps bigger<br>
and the documentation of the steps worse. In relation to our stated<br>
goals, each contribution to trunk is a step backwards and further away<br>
from our goal.<br>
<br>
Contrast this with the existing 3.11 process, all of the essential<br>
3.10-build fixes were packaged, documented, and automatically loadable<br>
separately on mantis, and as a result the majority of them are in pharo<br>
already. Yes we contributed to the pharo process (its a shame that they<br>
havent reciprocated the favour) So for example LPF doesnt need any fixes<br>
to load into pharo. Every fix that pharo adopted from the 3.11 in-tray<br>
is common code that brings the two forks closer together. This was only<br>
achievable because each fix is managed as a separate deliverable, rather<br>
than being thrown into trunk by some random unknown contributor. You<br>
have replaced a process that works towards the stated goals with no<br>
process at all.<br>
<div class="im">> It's still not clear how an actual release will be derived from the<br>
> trunk. We were discussing it in the Board meeting, and opinions<br>
> differed. So discussion will continue, and we're hoping for ideas to<br>
> come from the community.<br>
</div>What's that got to do with the board? If the board wants to discuss this<br>
then it should join and contribute to the release team who have to do<br>
the work. For years the board has done nothing, now all of a sudden it<br>
thinks it can suddenly be the release team, and make release team<br>
decisions without actually doing any of the work.<br>
<br>
How to produce a release is up to the release-team and the leader of the<br>
release team, which you don't have anymore. How is it fair that Andreas<br>
is unsackable because he is on the board, and I am not. So if Andreas is<br>
the new release team leader then he should step down from the board, due<br>
to a conflict of interests since the board should retain impartiality.<br>
<br>
You aren't going to get any ideas from the community, only Andreas knows<br>
what Andreas is going to do, and Andreas hasn't got a manager, nor is he<br>
working to any vision, set of values, or goals.<br>
<div class="im">> I for one would love to have automatic image building from the trunk,<br>
> and simply declare one of the automated builds to be "the one", after<br>
> an appropriate time of code slush and code freeze<br>
</div>What happened to our plan of stable and unstable builds.<br>
<div class="im">> of course. But many other models are possible,<br>
</div>No they aren't possible, because you have imposed a single model on the<br>
community, that model is Andreas now does what he wants to do, and he<br>
doesnt answer to anyone.<br>
<div class="im">> and you, as anyone else, is invited to discuss them.<br>
</div>I am discussing them, and I am saying that the "single" trunk model<br>
undermines everything else we have achieved so far. If I mark a fix in<br>
mantis, how do I know what that fix's status refers to? It has to be a<br>
fix relative to previous versions, not trunk.<br>
<br>
Until someone is appointed to actually manage what is going on, and to<br>
specify deliverables in a usable form for the community we are scuppered.<br>
<br>
I say again just in case you missed it again, I am not making any<br>
further contribution to the squeak community, until the board has some<br>
articles which define its articles and terms of operation, with some<br>
form of protocol and complaints procedure.<br>
<br>
Essentially as I pointed out before, having a position where there are<br>
two leaders for one team is a recipe for disaster, you need to fix that<br>
recipe urgently.<br>
<br>
best regards<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Keith<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>