<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br></font><blockquote type="cite">If you don't like process X, the way to persuade the community not to follow Andreas is to provide an alternative. Keith, it sounds to me like you've got clear ideas about what a better alternative would be, and have the tools realize that vision<br></blockquote><br>I think this is the way to go!<br>Clear ideas! no aggravations!<br></div></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>Gonzalo,</div><div><br></div><div>I think you missed the background of this conversation. I already did provide an alternative. I wrote a proposal, I put it to the board, the board approved it, and I worked on it for 3 years. Then without any discussion or warning, Andreas overruled, (something which, if the board had a constitution would surely be unconstitutional) and in doing so scuppered the process we had, causing a lot of bad feeling. The last two times this happened on this scale the consequences were off the scale, and this should not be accepted ever.</div><div><br></div><div>The bob process has already been undermined, by "trunk" as things whose integrity the previous process depended on have been re-directed and diluted, because everyone is thinking in terms of evolving moving targets rather than having regular actual tested releases, with a migration path between them.</div><div><br></div><div>There is no point in doing any further work on this, if that work becomes a competition. Competitions have losers.</div><div><br></div><div>Simply put, we looked at the problem of forking, and we formulated an approach that "might" just help. We didn't know if it would work, but without it squeak as a viable movement is dead. It will degenerate into nothing more than a bunch of isolated lumps of code, with a couple of programmers hacking away at each one.</div><div><br></div><div>The answer is not to develop another fork.</div><div><br></div><div>The answer fundamentally requires every person's contribution to be valued highly and harnessed, through being able to support the notion of multiple lines of innovation that cross fertilise. "trunk" by being one line of innovation, and by throwing away 3 years of work shakes these principles to their core.</div><div><br></div><div>Until the bad feeling is resolved, and the board gets a constitution the community is unable to function, and has shown that it is unable to function. Indeed it should be considered emotionally dangerous to participate in.</div><div><br></div><div>Squeak currently is just a lump of code in the hands of one or two gifted programmers, and they will bung us a release over the fence every now and then. </div><div><br></div><div>Every goal that has been promised in the past few years, kernel image, build your own squeak, atomic loading, has failed to happen. Because these visions have all required tools and innovation of the process to facilitate them. If you develop those tools and innovate the process, you get overruled by people who just want a new fork.</div><div><br></div><div>Pharo, showed us how it shouldn't be done, and now we are just copying them.</div><div><br></div><div>regards</div><div><br></div><div>Keith</div></body></html>