[Squeakfoundation]The Natives are Restless
Wed, 23 May 2001 15:30:55 -0500
I support this and would like to name Dan as our chief
Pointer-In-The-Right-Direction and general Kicker-In-The-Pants. Please,
let's get something concrete happening and get on with it. An organization
is only as good as its people and what they *do* - everything else is fluff.
This whole process to set up SqF feels like being pecked to death by ducks
(and yes, I realize it hasn't even really gotten started). I know some of
you may live for stuff like this, and I know that much of it is necessary,
eventually, but my brain switches off after a couple of minutes and I
wander off across the landscape to do something else - anything else. I get
the same feeling standing in line at the DMV.
Declare SqF as a organization with a mandate to define and redefine itself
whenever and however is necessary to be the SqF we want and need. Declare
SqF a dynamically self-optimizing entity.
At 02:31 PM 05/23/2001, Dan Ingalls wrote:
>Speaking as one who wants to see SqF take advantage of the community urge
>for a truly open Squeak, I have some concern for the pace of bringing SqF
>What I see is the Stable Squeak experiment reaching completion in not much
>more time than we have spent deliberating over the definition of SqF, and
>a number of people who *would support* an SqF looking elsewhere for it
>when it is right under their nose.
>Why? Because we haven't yet declared the existence of SqF.
>With no disrespect for the goals or even the process represented by the
>dialog on this list so far, what I'm wondering is: Why wait for all the
>chaordic process and exact definitions to declare the existence of SqF?
>Instead, why not
> Declare that SqF exists,
> Appoint a number of "acting" officers
> Declare a couple of active projects
> one of which is to converge on a more formal
> def of the organization
> I think I could even raise a few $$ to carry us through the
> interim period
>As token "Old Fart" I'm willing to be put in any role. I'll even appoint
>myself and everybody else if no one wants to do this. And I'll make up a
>project list (you can guess from prior messages).
>That doesn't sound very democratic ("open"), but I'm just wanting to
>"jump-start" the organization so that it can be accreting respect and
>definition while it is still being born, and so that we can channel the
>open Squeak urges into a coherent future, rather than fighting fires on
>the Squeak mail list and dissipating energy in twenty splinter efforts.
>What do others feel?
> - Dan
>This may sound critical, but I don't feel that way at all.
>I'm happy with the current participants and process.
>I just feel the need for an interim solution.