I still have that old "voting" software I once wrote as a proof-of-concept of what we could do with SqP's web of trust. I thought it'd be neat to do a round of voting about what should land in v3.9, now that the 3.9a team is considering going to beta.
The team also thought it'd be need to get some structured input, so I cleaned up the database and it's now available for voting.
The idea is simple: - Go to http://de-1.tric.nl/seaside/sqp/list - Login with your Squeak People account - Create an issue or vote on issues. You will see the number of votes you have constantly updated. Note: I haven't yet added the possibility to delete issues, and if you add an issue, you have to allocate at least one vote to it. So think before creating issues! In fact, you can't even edit an issue - which is logical, otherwise you could rig the voting (editing an issue should logically imply losing all votes that were on it before the issue).
The SqP angle is that the higher your ranking, the more votes you get - Observers get none, Apprentice gets 5, Journeyer 10, Master 15. This is an entirely unfounded distribution and I'm not going to debate it here ;-).
Note: this voting round serves two purposes: - Advise, I repeat: advise, the 3.9a team. They're entirely free to completely ignore the outcome of this stuff, although if many many many people vote for something and they don't do it, it'd be nice if they'd give a reason; - Check whether this sort of utility is useful.
The software can be found in the SqueakPeople repository on SqueakSource.
Have fun!
Cees
Cees De Groot wrote: ....
- Advise, I repeat: advise, the 3.9a team. They're entirely free to
completely ignore the outcome of this stuff, although if many many many people vote for something and they don't do it, it'd be nice if they'd give a reason;
A few people play leaders and they feel free to completely ignore the complete community. You described exactly the sad state of Squeak today.
Regards, Martin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
- Advise, I repeat: advise, the 3.9a team. They're entirely free to
completely ignore the outcome of this stuff, although if many many many people vote for something and they don't do it, it'd be nice if they'd give a reason;
A few people play leaders and they feel free to completely ignore the complete community. You described exactly the sad state of Squeak today.
What are you talking about ? The developers take great care of correcting issues in mantis, put each new images to ftp so that everybody can test and command ; They also communicate on what they do and on what they focus on. Everybody can post new things, patches... and they will always have a look at it.
So what do you want ? If you do not agree with the process, just be clear and describe your point of view. They read this list.
- -- Damien Cassou
On Jan 18, 2006, at 1:26 PM, Martin Wirblat wrote:
Cees De Groot wrote: ....
- Advise, I repeat: advise, the 3.9a team. They're entirely free to
completely ignore the outcome of this stuff, although if many many many people vote for something and they don't do it, it'd be nice if they'd give a reason;
A few people play leaders and they feel free to completely ignore the complete community. You described exactly the sad state of Squeak today.
Do you have specific instances where the community has been ignored? My feeling is that concerns raised on the list are seriously considered. Of course, not all of them can be addressed; the people driving the 3.9 effort are very busy. At least progress is being made in some direction, even if it is not exactly the direction that some factions within the community would like. Overall, I have the feeling that 3.9 is moving in a direction that reflects the will of the community.
Josh
Regards, Martin
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:26:26PM +0100, Martin Wirblat wrote:
Cees De Groot wrote: ....
- Advise, I repeat: advise, the 3.9a team. They're entirely free to
completely ignore the outcome of this stuff, although if many many many people vote for something and they don't do it, it'd be nice if they'd give a reason;
A few people play leaders and they feel free to completely ignore the complete community. You described exactly the sad state of Squeak today.
That's not fair. Cees is going to a good deal of trouble to *get* our input, and he is setting clear expectations so that we know it will be treated is *input*. He is also making it clear that he is not arbitrarily changing the rules or the process; he's just trying to make it work well by getting more input and advice from all of us. This is a good thing.
Dave
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:44:38 -0800, David T. Lewis lewis@mail.msen.com wrote:
A few people play leaders and they feel free to completely ignore the complete community. You described exactly the sad state of Squeak today.
That's not fair.
No, not in the least. The guys who are doing the work are WAY more receptive to feedback than they have to be. And if someone doesn't like it, they're free to go their own way.
Thanks Because we really try our best. But as usual talking is easy.
And this is always fun to see that we do not see enh or fix of the same people been always negative.
A few people play leaders and they feel free to completely ignore the complete community. You described exactly the sad state of Squeak today.
That's not fair.
No, not in the least. The guys who are doing the work are WAY more receptive to feedback than they have to be. And if someone doesn't like it, they're free to go their own way.
David T. Lewis wrote: ...
That's not fair. Cees is going to a good deal of trouble to *get* our input, and he is setting clear expectations so that we know it will be treated is *input*. He is also making it clear that he is not arbitrarily changing the rules or the process; he's just trying to make it work well by getting more input and advice from all of us. This is a good thing.
He is arbitrarily cementing the rule that there is a release team that is free to completely ignore any opinions about what becomes the next Squeak release. This rule in itself is nonsense. Can this whole thing be called community with such a rule?
In this special case of 3.9 Stephane tries to change the language according to his personal views. Does it make sense to shield him against any criticism by defining that he is free to completely ignore what others think?
And there have been skeptical opinions from important persons of this community which is on the brink to break into two parts right now. One idea to solve this problem was to have a *small* core Squeak and building on that special distributions or "flavors". This way a contradiction between Traits and Tweak, which apparently exists - be it temporarily, practically or whatsoever, could be circumvented. We could have Squeak-Core and on top of that Squeak-Traits and Squeak-Tweak, which of course does not exclude a merge or redistribution at a later time.
Anyway, a little common sense should tell everyone that it is sensible to try a language change over a longer period of time than just a few month. This prolonged trial period and of course the freedom of choice would be served nicely by this release model.
Well, my strong impression is, that Stephane tries to prohibit exactly this and Cees seems to support him.
Regards, Martin
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 03:12:26 -0800, Martin Wirblat sql.mawi@t-link.de wrote:
He is arbitrarily cementing the rule that
Congratulations on using the word "cement" in the context of Squeak without cracking a smile.<s>
there is a release team that is free to completely ignore any opinions about what becomes the next Squeak release. This rule in itself is nonsense.
Welcome to Open Source. This is the de facto state of affairs for any open source project.
People can debate or they can work. They can't do both. To the extent that they try, the work will suffer. No work = no product = no community. Half-implementations are useless to everyone.
Can this whole thing be called community with such a rule?
Ultimately, someone has to make a decision. This means being "free to completely ignore any opinions" in opposition to that decision. Of course, a community accretes or attrits based on whether those decisions are useful or interesting.
In this special case of 3.9 Stephane tries to change the language according to his personal views. Does it make sense to shield him against any criticism by defining that he is free to completely ignore what others think?
You are using the word "others" imprecisely. When you say "free to completely ignore what others thing", you make it sound as if Stephane were some rogue coder, heeding no one in his reckless charge to make Squeak his personal mad-scientist laboratory. But, of course, Stephane has a lot of support from "others". If he didn't, traits would have to be so perfectly transparent no work would need to be done by anyone other than Stephane to implement them, and he'd then have to force them into the official Squeak release, which no one has the authority to do autonomously.
What you really mean, however, is that he is free to ignore =some= others. In particular, you, and those who agree with you.
And there have been skeptical opinions from important persons of this community which is on the brink to break into two parts right now.
I don't understand the source of the illusion that there is a single Squeak community, or that breaking into parts is necessarily undesirable.
One idea to solve this problem was to have a *small* core Squeak and building on that special distributions or "flavors".
But that in itself is a major project. More than one, actually. Nothing prevents you from doing this or joining one of the many teams that are working on this.
This way a contradiction between Traits and Tweak, which apparently exists - be it temporarily, practically or whatsoever, could be circumvented.
A contradiction seems unlikely. A conflict--many conflicts--seem inevitable.
We could have Squeak-Core and on top of that Squeak-Traits and Squeak-Tweak, which of course does not exclude a merge or redistribution at a later time.
Sounds great! When will it be ready? Tongue-in-cheek, of course, but if "the community" supports your vision, and that community contains people who are actually willing to work, then implementing your vision should be no problem, right?
Anyway, a little common sense should tell everyone that it is sensible to try a language change over a longer period of time than just a few month.
Traits have been a prototype since--I don't know how long. Over a year, for sure.
I disagree with your "common sense", though. Gradual language changes (I'm not even sure how that would work with traits, frankly) tend to result in kludges, fragile code, and code that rots quickly. I'm only going by practical examples, here, like the introduction of objects to 3GLs, which started with a bunch of function tables (in some cases). Or some languages that adopted exception handling slowly. Or some of the weird morphings of the database-based languages. Basically, situations where expedience and not scaring people were the #1 priorities.
It's often best to make a clean, brutal break (and calling "traits" a brutal change is a stretch).
This prolonged trial period and of course the freedom of choice would be served nicely by this release model.
I dunno. It seems like you've stepped out the concrete to offer a solution which sounds perfectly reasonable, but lacks detail, implementors, and requires people to divert their energies in the name of your freedom of choice (which, it should be pointed out, is already absolute).
Well, my strong impression is, that Stephane tries to prohibit exactly this and Cees seems to support him.
I've never sensed any serious quashing of debate on this list (which is why we're so free to have the same discussions over and over again>s?). The only thing that comes close--and it doesn't come close at all, really--is when someone who's itching to make some actual progress (rather than hash out a 100% consensus) says, "Let's stop talking and get down to work."
Ultimately, all we have is theory until the work is done. I'd rather see a release of Tweak and Traits that conflicted than not to see either due to fear, uncertainty and doubt. Conflicts can be resolved. Hypotheticals cannot.
Well, this turned out to be more of a rant than I planned, but it seems like your complaint is ill-timed, considering the team reports, the voting, etc. It seems to me that work is getting done, which is a good thing, and not a given.
Mistakes will be made. Not a good thing, and unfortunately, a given.
He is arbitrarily cementing the rule that there is a release team that is free to completely ignore any opinions about what becomes the next Squeak release. This rule in itself is nonsense. Can this whole thing be called community with such a rule?
In this special case of 3.9 Stephane tries to change the language according to his personal views. Does it make sense to shield him against any criticism by defining that he is free to completely ignore what others think?
Do you really think that if lot of people would not have been enthousiastic about traits we would have ***work*** to integrate them seamlessly and transparently?
And there have been skeptical opinions from important persons of this community which is on the brink to break into two parts right now. One idea to solve this problem was to have a *small* core Squeak and building on that special distributions or "flavors". This way a contradiction between Traits and Tweak, which apparently exists - be it temporarily, practically or whatsoever, could be circumvented.
I do not understand why you want to oppose traits and tweak. There is no such an opposition, after this is clear that there will be some work (but the problem is not with traits) to remove Morphic and use Tweak but we already said to andreas long time ago that we are ready to help.
Apparently as usual you are talking but without knowing.
We could have Squeak-Core and on top of that Squeak-Traits and Squeak-Tweak, which of course does not exclude a merge or redistribution at a later time.
Sure but not because of your contribution.
Anyway, a little common sense should tell everyone that it is sensible to try a language change over a longer period of time than just a few month. This prolonged trial period and of course the freedom of choice would be served nicely by this release model.
Well, my strong impression is, that Stephane tries to prohibit exactly this and Cees seems to support him.
The traits implementation has been available since lot of time. There is an open mailing-list. You can check it. We asked for beta tester. But as usual you are talking, talking talking.....
I will not reply to you anymore because I'm busy and prefer to spend my time on positive things.
Stef
stéphane ducasse wrote: ....
I do not understand why you want to oppose traits and tweak. There is no such an opposition, after this is clear that there will be some work (but the problem is not with traits) to remove Morphic and use Tweak but we already said to andreas long time ago that we are ready to help.
Apparently as usual you are talking but without knowing.
Stephane,
the last thing Andreas said regarding 3.9 with Traits in relation to Tweak was, that because of a series of errors he ran into caused by the class/metaclass changes by Traits and given the pain he experienced while porting Tweak to 3.8 he didn't want to investigate these errors further, and he didn't even mention making another port of Tweak to 3.9.
Moreover he gave an interesting and *skeptical or cautious* overview about what Traits is and what it is not in his opinion.
lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2006-January/099311.html
You responded to this post but as usual you ignored its implications. In fact you keep on ignoring Andreas' complaints about what you stuff into the update stream since a long time. Moreover, you try to turn down every skeptical opinion about Traits. At least you ignore it.
But, you could proof me wrong, here and now, and I will withdraw my assertion that you behave ignorantly. Just agree to the idea that Squeak makes from now on a minimalistic release Squeak-Core, with Squeak-Traits and Squeak-Tweak (and perhaps others) on top of it.
Regards, Martin
Martin Wirblat wrote: Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 10:39 AM
the last thing Andreas said ...
I know Andreas is shy, and doesn't really speak his mind ... but I think he can speak for himself. I seem to remember Andreas saying he'd give traits a workout.
(I couldn't help it, I got sucked in :^)
Happy programming!
Ron
All mankind is divided into three classes: those that are immovable, those that are movable, and those that move. - Benjamin Franklin
Am 19.01.2006 um 16:38 schrieb Martin Wirblat:
stéphane ducasse wrote: ....
I do not understand why you want to oppose traits and tweak. There is no such an opposition, after this is clear that there will be some work (but the problem is not with traits) to remove Morphic and use Tweak but we already said to andreas long time ago that we are ready to help. Apparently as usual you are talking but without knowing.
Stephane,
the last thing Andreas said regarding 3.9 with Traits in relation to Tweak was, that because of a series of errors he ran into caused by the class/metaclass changes by Traits and given the pain he experienced while porting Tweak to 3.8 he didn't want to investigate these errors further, and he didn't even mention making another port of Tweak to 3.9.
Moreover he gave an interesting and *skeptical or cautious* overview about what Traits is and what it is not in his opinion.
lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2006-January/ 099311.html
You responded to this post but as usual you ignored its implications. In fact you keep on ignoring Andreas' complaints about what you stuff into the update stream since a long time. Moreover, you try to turn down every skeptical opinion about Traits. At least you ignore it.
But, you could proof me wrong, here and now, and I will withdraw my assertion that you behave ignorantly. Just agree to the idea that Squeak makes from now on a minimalistic release Squeak-Core, with Squeak-Traits and Squeak-Tweak (and perhaps others) on top of it.
*plonk*
- Bert -
- Advise, I repeat: advise, the 3.9a team. They're entirely free to
completely ignore the outcome of this stuff, although if many many many people vote for something and they don't do it, it'd be nice if they'd give a reason;
A few people play leaders and they feel free to completely ignore the complete community. You described exactly the sad state of Squeak today.
I know that lot of people are reading this mailing-list and I do not want that you succeed in your systematic approach to demolish what we are doing. Because we are making progress, even you can systematically deny it.
We are paying a lot of attention to the community: We are communicating with the teams - web team, Morphic teams, File team... We will do an announce to know if other team (graphics...) have new changes for 3.9. We are taking care that lot of speed fixes and tools enh get harvested. We are talking care to let the people vote and participate in the foundation.
Now you can be negative this is your right and kick our asses (I'm much more exigent than you on the weaknesses of what we are doing) and even if Andreas is often harsh, he acts as a good sting to kick us. I appreciate his comments.
Our goal is still to make Squeak an environment where people can invent their or our future in education software (have a look http://documentation.ofset.org/ drgeo/videos/drgeo2-center.mpeg), webdev, and any developments. We are always cautious that changes is difficult and may break other code.
Come on martin stop to be frustrated and participate (review fixes, join a team, have fun life is too short to get frustrated all the time). At one point people will start to put your address in their spam filter and you will have lost and us too, since if you comment would be constructiv and you would participate we would have all gain something at the end of the day. But again this is your choice.
Stef
Martin Wirblat a écrit :
Cees De Groot wrote: ....
- Advise, I repeat: advise, the 3.9a team. They're entirely free to
completely ignore the outcome of this stuff, although if many many many people vote for something and they don't do it, it'd be nice if they'd give a reason;
A few people play leaders and they feel free to completely ignore the complete community. You described exactly the sad state of Squeak today.
Come on Martin, take a break! Have you seen this small message of Marcus Denker "[ANN] 3.9a6715", pre-release 3.9 of Squeak. This also include a list of fixes. Did you download this pre-release and test it? Personnaly I did and I also install some of my software into to check for compatibility. So far so good. Keep doing the good job guys.
Hilaire
On 20.01.2006, at 22:42, Hilaire Fernandes wrote:
Martin Wirblat a écrit :
Cees De Groot wrote: ....
- Advise, I repeat: advise, the 3.9a team. They're entirely free to
completely ignore the outcome of this stuff, although if many many many people vote for something and they don't do it, it'd be nice if they'd give a reason;
A few people play leaders and they feel free to completely ignore the complete community. You described exactly the sad state of Squeak today.
How would a better state look like?
Marcus
Marcus Denker wrote:
How would a better state look like?
One of the things that I'd really like to see is a better (as in: more transparent and better documented) decision making process. I think that this is at the heart of what upsets many people (including myself) - the fact that nobody really knows who has decided to do X or Y and by whose authority.
Take 3.9 for example - to me, it's not surprising that some actions are perceived as somebody driving their personal agenda if even the big ticket items on the 3.9 TODO list have no clear indication how they ended up there and who decided by which means (other than screaming the loudest) that they'd get into that release. (the same is true for any past-SqC release btw - I am simply choosing 3.9 because it's the current one and -for me- one of the most confusing in this regard)
And that of course is part of the state of the community right now - namely that the processes by which these decisions happen are complete mysteries even to people who like to think of themselves (perhaps wrongly) as part of the "initiated" (like myself). I can honestly say that I have no idea whatsoever what the decision processes look like at this point.
Cheers, - Andreas
On 1/22/06, Andreas Raab andreas.raab@gmx.de wrote:
Take 3.9 for example [...]
Well, you're right of course. We're still finding a way to do this, but in this case I recall that stuff was proposed, most likely debated ;-), and then people went on with doing it which probably meant that they felt that the community's response to the proposals was mostly positive. There are always better ways but as we're new at this...
Anyway, I suggested last week on the SqF board list that we find a 4.0 team lead - 3.9a is approaching beta status, and I hope the beta period will be short so 4.0 development can start soon. A first task for a 4.0 team lead could be to try to dig up the decision making process around 3.9 and propose something better. Then use that process to drive the process for what should land in 4.0 and what not. Oh, and gather a team around him, of course. Sounds like a busy guy, this 4.0 team lead ;-)
It's not official, and it's probably better to wait until after the board elections before the SqF board "appoints" a team load, but it'd be nice if people start thinking about the post-3.9 future, including on how to drive functionality decisions and who would be a good team lead.
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 12:13:49PM +0100, Cees De Groot wrote:
Anyway, I suggested last week on the SqF board list that we find a 4.0 team lead - 3.9a is approaching beta status, and I hope the beta period will be short so 4.0 development can start soon.
'3.9' asVersion next ==> '3.10' asVersion
On 22-Jan-06, at 8:34 AM, David T. Lewis wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 12:13:49PM +0100, Cees De Groot wrote:
Anyway, I suggested last week on the SqF board list that we find a 4.0 team lead - 3.9a is approaching beta status, and I hope the beta period will be short so 4.0 development can start soon.
'3.9' asVersion next ==> '3.10' asVersion
Exactly. The 4.0 appellation needs to be reserved for a jump to a much cleaner system that deserves a new release of the sources file.
For a very long time we've been talking (waffling?) about making a break and adopting a new compiled method format, cutting out a lot of ancient backwards compatible dross, ... oh, lots. 4.0 really ought to be that.
tim -- tim Rowledge; tim@rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim Strange OpCodes: OKP: On your Knees and Pray!
tim Rowledge wrote:
'3.9' asVersion next ==> '3.10' asVersion
Exactly. The 4.0 appellation needs to be reserved for a jump to a much cleaner system that deserves a new release of the sources file.
I would actually propose introducing 3.x source files. The changes file from a fresh release is ridiculously large IMO.
Michael
On 1/22/06, tim Rowledge tim@rowledge.org wrote:
For a very long time we've been talking (waffling?) about making a break and adopting a new compiled method format, cutting out a lot of ancient backwards compatible dross, ... oh, lots. 4.0 really ought to be that.
Yup. And if I recall correctly, the last time we discussed this the idea was to make 3.9 the latest of the 3 series, and start working on a 'burn the diskpacks' 4.0 after that.
Il giorno dom, 22/01/2006 alle 18.11 +0100, Cees De Groot ha scritto:
On 1/22/06, tim Rowledge tim@rowledge.org wrote:
For a very long time we've been talking (waffling?) about making a break and adopting a new compiled method format, cutting out a lot of ancient backwards compatible dross, ... oh, lots. 4.0 really ought to be that.
Yup. And if I recall correctly, the last time we discussed this the idea was to make 3.9 the latest of the 3 series, and start working on a 'burn the diskpacks' 4.0 after that.
Are we sure that the current process can handle a 4.0 release in a smooth way? Wouldn't it be better if we had another 3.x release, in order to fine tune the process?
Giovanni
On 25-Jan-06, at 12:15 PM, Giovanni Corriga wrote:
[snip] Are we sure that the current process can handle a 4.0 release in a smooth way? Wouldn't it be better if we had another 3.x release, in order to fine tune the process?
I think we should anticipate at least another 3.x release before any 4.0. A bunch of work to do.
tim -- tim Rowledge; tim@rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim No program done by an undergrad will work after she graduates.
Yes
Anyway, I suggested last week on the SqF board list that we find a 4.0 team lead - 3.9a is approaching beta status, and I hope the beta period will be short so 4.0 development can start soon.
'3.9' asVersion next ==> '3.10' asVersion
Exactly. The 4.0 appellation needs to be reserved for a jump to a much cleaner system that deserves a new release of the sources file.
For a very long time we've been talking (waffling?) about making a break and adopting a new compiled method format, cutting out a lot of ancient backwards compatible dross, ... oh, lots. 4.0 really ought to be that.
The same that was in 3.6, 3.7, 3.8. We proposed a list of points that we would work on and waited for feedback. At least contrary to before, the list was explicit.
Stef
On 22 janv. 06, at 02:42, Andreas Raab wrote:
Marcus Denker wrote:
How would a better state look like?
One of the things that I'd really like to see is a better (as in: more transparent and better documented) decision making process. I think that this is at the heart of what upsets many people (including myself) - the fact that nobody really knows who has decided to do X or Y and by whose authority.
Take 3.9 for example - to me, it's not surprising that some actions are perceived as somebody driving their personal agenda if even the big ticket items on the 3.9 TODO list have no clear indication how they ended up there and who decided by which means (other than screaming the loudest) that they'd get into that release. (the same is true for any past-SqC release btw - I am simply choosing 3.9 because it's the current one and -for me- one of the most confusing in this regard)
And that of course is part of the state of the community right now
- namely that the processes by which these decisions happen are
complete mysteries even to people who like to think of themselves (perhaps wrongly) as part of the "initiated" (like myself). I can honestly say that I have no idea whatsoever what the decision processes look like at this point.
Cheers,
- Andreas
stéphane ducasse wrote:
The same that was in 3.6, 3.7, 3.8.
Which, like I said, is equally bad in this regard.
We proposed a list of points that we would work on and waited for feedback.
Sure. I didn't say there was no feedback, I said there was no transparent decision process. Or put differently, once you had that feedback, who made the decision to include those points and not others in the 3.9a list? To choose X over Y? Based on which authority did that person or group make the decision? And (arguably) most importantly (at least to avoid endless discussions) is there any kind of documentation (links to email threads for example) about the discussion and the decision?
This whole discussion started by an accusation that soms people drive only their personal agenda - and the best to contradict this is to point to the decision process and say "look, here is where discussed this, here is vote/decision process, this is the result and it's explicity documented here for people just like you who don't read Squeak-dev daily and have not been following the discussion closely".
At least contrary to before, the list was explicit.
The previous versions were actually no less explicit if you go over the mailing list archives but they were not as well documented so I see that as a definitive improvement.
Cheers, - Andreas
Hi everyone. I personally think that Andreas Raab has a completely legitimate complaint. I don't think the community has the tools to make transparent decisions in a way that is participative, so the best that can happen at the moment is a mailing list discussion that sort of peters out and then someone decides what happened.
These things take a lot of time, and in the end, the decision is not really representative. I think this outcome is characteristic of email - it is hard to do much better in this medium.
In the context of the coming stepping down of the (self selected) SqF Board, an election team has been formed, and a few of us think that the first ingredient we need to be a community that makes represented decisions, is a voting system. This consists of some software (website that allows issues and alternative solutions to be registered), some rules (who gets to vote?), and mostly the participation of the community.
Our current proposal for the voting software is at http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/5835
We are looking for comment on these requirements, and for someone with web development skills to help implement.
There are existing systems that provide part of the functionality, for example CIVS at http://www.cs.cornell.edu/andru/civs.html
The reason to roll our own solution here is that we want to automate the whole process, in order to make it possible for anyone to initiate a vote, with no hidden parts.
About eligibility to vote, this is a more contentious issue I am not addressing here, except to mention that we want to be able to represent the wide Squeak community, and that we generally think SqP is not a bad mechanism for registering voters.
Daniel PS - the coming elections will probably be performed in CIVS, for lack of a better system, but someone else will write more about that, the next election is not my main concern.
Andreas Raab wrote:
stéphane ducasse wrote:
The same that was in 3.6, 3.7, 3.8.
Which, like I said, is equally bad in this regard.
We proposed a list of points that we would work on and waited for feedback.
Sure. I didn't say there was no feedback, I said there was no transparent decision process. Or put differently, once you had that feedback, who made the decision to include those points and not others in the 3.9a list? To choose X over Y? Based on which authority did that person or group make the decision? And (arguably) most importantly (at least to avoid endless discussions) is there any kind of documentation (links to email threads for example) about the discussion and the decision?
This whole discussion started by an accusation that soms people drive only their personal agenda - and the best to contradict this is to point to the decision process and say "look, here is where discussed this, here is vote/decision process, this is the result and it's explicity documented here for people just like you who don't read Squeak-dev daily and have not been following the discussion closely".
At least contrary to before, the list was explicit.
The previous versions were actually no less explicit if you go over the mailing list archives but they were not as well documented so I see that as a definitive improvement.
Cheers,
- Andreas
The process of taking control by a few people continue.
I read the other mail and and seems important people just go his own way.
Deciding who counts is not Democracy, and I don't wish a King of Squeak with a bunch of war lords backing he.
It's very sad what intelligent and dedicated members are hurting community.
A last time .
Keep your word, if you have one, and go to deserved rest.
New people sure can't do worst what this nonsense 3.9.
Edgar , Advocatus Diaboli
___________________________________________________________ 1GB gratis, Antivirus y Antispam Correo Yahoo!, el mejor correo web del mundo http://correo.yahoo.com.ar
Lic. Edgar J. De Cleene a écrit :
The process of taking control by a few people continue.
Which control? It is free software. It will be more accurate to talk about people self-organising themselves to develop a product, don't you? It is nothing to do with democracy.
I read the other mail and and seems important people just go his own way.
Deciding who counts is not Democracy, and I don't wish a King of Squeak with a bunch of war lords backing he.
It is not about kingdom nor democracy but about software development and giving a direction to it. For example, the Free Software Foundation is by no-way democraticaly organized. Is the FSF evil? Of course not.
Hilaire
Hi
I think that what is also important to consider is that we do not own the people time. And even if you vote because you want something to be done, it may happen that nothing happen at the end.
Stef
Hi everyone. I personally think that Andreas Raab has a completely legitimate complaint. I don't think the community has the tools to make transparent decisions in a way that is participative, so the best that can happen at the moment is a mailing list discussion that sort of peters out and then someone decides what happened.
These things take a lot of time, and in the end, the decision is not really representative. I think this outcome is characteristic of email - it is hard to do much better in this medium.
In the context of the coming stepping down of the (self selected) SqF Board, an election team has been formed, and a few of us think that the first ingredient we need to be a community that makes represented decisions, is a voting system. This consists of some software (website that allows issues and alternative solutions to be registered), some rules (who gets to vote?), and mostly the participation of the community.
Our current proposal for the voting software is at http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/5835
We are looking for comment on these requirements, and for someone with web development skills to help implement.
There are existing systems that provide part of the functionality, for example CIVS at http://www.cs.cornell.edu/andru/civs.html
The reason to roll our own solution here is that we want to automate the whole process, in order to make it possible for anyone to initiate a vote, with no hidden parts.
About eligibility to vote, this is a more contentious issue I am not addressing here, except to mention that we want to be able to represent the wide Squeak community, and that we generally think SqP is not a bad mechanism for registering voters.
Daniel PS - the coming elections will probably be performed in CIVS, for lack of a better system, but someone else will write more about that, the next election is not my main concern.
Andreas Raab wrote:
stéphane ducasse wrote:
The same that was in 3.6, 3.7, 3.8.
Which, like I said, is equally bad in this regard.
We proposed a list of points that we would work on and waited for feedback.
Sure. I didn't say there was no feedback, I said there was no transparent decision process. Or put differently, once you had that feedback, who made the decision to include those points and not others in the 3.9a list? To choose X over Y? Based on which authority did that person or group make the decision? And (arguably) most importantly (at least to avoid endless discussions) is there any kind of documentation (links to email threads for example) about the discussion and the decision? This whole discussion started by an accusation that soms people drive only their personal agenda - and the best to contradict this is to point to the decision process and say "look, here is where discussed this, here is vote/decision process, this is the result and it's explicity documented here for people just like you who don't read Squeak-dev daily and have not been following the discussion closely".
At least contrary to before, the list was explicit.
The previous versions were actually no less explicit if you go over the mailing list archives but they were not as well documented so I see that as a definitive improvement. Cheers,
- Andreas
On 23.01.2006 11:55, stéphane ducasse wrote:
Hi
I think that what is also important to consider is that we do not own the people time.
And even if you vote because you want something to be done, it may happen that nothing happen at the end.
Nevertheless it may be interesting for people to know what others want, if they have more than one idea; a good example is http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/940 . OK, a little bit outdated, but a nice try.
Regards, Stephan
Stef ...
On 24.01.2006 01:07, I wrote:
On 23.01.2006 11:55, stéphane ducasse wrote:
Hi
I think that what is also important to consider is that we do not own the people time.
And even if you vote because you want something to be done, it may happen that nothing happen at the end.
Nevertheless it may be interesting for people to know what others want, if they have more than one idea; a good example is http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/940 .
OK, a little bit outdated, but a nice try.
No, it has been far more than a try: he has really finished one of these projects!
--sr
...
Daniel Vainsencher a écrit :
Hi everyone. I personally think that Andreas Raab has a completely legitimate complaint. I don't think the community has the tools to make transparent decisions in a way that is participative, so the best that can happen at the moment is a mailing list discussion that sort of peters out and then someone decides what happened.
These things take a lot of time, and in the end, the decision is not really representative. I think this outcome is characteristic of email - it is hard to do much better in this medium.
In the context of the coming stepping down of the (self selected) SqF Board, an election team has been formed, and a few of us think that the first ingredient we need to be a community that makes represented decisions, is a voting system. This consists of some software (website that allows issues and alternative solutions to be registered), some rules (who gets to vote?), and mostly the participation of the community.
May be thinking about what is the target/goal of a SqueakFoundation could help to decide what is the most suitable organisation (I would not say political organisation because it is not about organising a civil society but to lead a project). As a squeak user, I want a Squeak Foundation able to make evolve Squeak, to make it more robust, faster, legal proof, etc. blabla. Althought I have to admit I don't know how this can be done. To say the true I don't care about election going on in a Squeakfoundation as I did not care SqueakCentral was closed as a black box.
I think at a tech & legal level, what matter is to have brillant people working together, this is why I think that a cooptation internal election could be a viable and easier option, which avoid these people spending too much time in administrative matter. IMHO, a Squeak foundation board should be composed of a large spectrum of the people who make Squeak alive.
Hilaire
Our current proposal for the voting software is at http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/5835
We are looking for comment on these requirements, and for someone with web development skills to help implement.
There are existing systems that provide part of the functionality, for example CIVS at http://www.cs.cornell.edu/andru/civs.html
The reason to roll our own solution here is that we want to automate the whole process, in order to make it possible for anyone to initiate a vote, with no hidden parts.
About eligibility to vote, this is a more contentious issue I am not addressing here, except to mention that we want to be able to represent the wide Squeak community, and that we generally think SqP is not a bad mechanism for registering voters.
Daniel PS - the coming elections will probably be performed in CIVS, for lack of a better system, but someone else will write more about that, the next election is not my main concern.
Andreas Raab wrote:
stéphane ducasse wrote:
The same that was in 3.6, 3.7, 3.8.
Which, like I said, is equally bad in this regard.
We proposed a list of points that we would work on and waited for feedback.
Sure. I didn't say there was no feedback, I said there was no transparent decision process. Or put differently, once you had that feedback, who made the decision to include those points and not others in the 3.9a list? To choose X over Y? Based on which authority did that person or group make the decision? And (arguably) most importantly (at least to avoid endless discussions) is there any kind of documentation (links to email threads for example) about the discussion and the decision?
This whole discussion started by an accusation that soms people drive only their personal agenda - and the best to contradict this is to point to the decision process and say "look, here is where discussed this, here is vote/decision process, this is the result and it's explicity documented here for people just like you who don't read Squeak-dev daily and have not been following the discussion closely".
At least contrary to before, the list was explicit.
The previous versions were actually no less explicit if you go over the mailing list archives but they were not as well documented so I see that as a definitive improvement.
Cheers,
- Andreas
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 20:26:26 +0100, Martin Wirblat sql.mawi@t-link.de writes:
Cees De Groot wrote: ....
- Advise, I repeat: advise, the 3.9a team. They're entirely free to
completely ignore the outcome of this stuff, although if many many many people vote for something and they don't do it, it'd be nice if they'd give a reason;
A few people play leaders and they feel free to completely ignore the complete community. You described exactly the sad state of Squeak today.
Why don't you work on documenting, implementing, and debugging? Those who do the work get a *lot* more say in what work does or doesn't get done.
Those who do the work deserve to lead. They don't deserve your complaints.
Scott
Scott A Crosby scrosby@cs.rice.edu writes:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 20:26:26 +0100, Martin Wirblat sql.mawi@t-link.de writes:
Cees De Groot wrote: ....
- Advise, I repeat: advise, the 3.9a team. They're entirely free to
completely ignore the outcome of this stuff, although if many many many people vote for something and they don't do it, it'd be nice if they'd give a reason;
A few people play leaders and they feel free to completely ignore the complete community. You described exactly the sad state of Squeak today.
Why don't you work on documenting, implementing, and debugging? Those who do the work get a *lot* more say in what work does or doesn't get done.
Those who do the work deserve to lead. They don't deserve your complaints.
Scott
I don't understand why we don't want listen someone who feel that there is a sad state and a problem into the squeak community ? Why such attacks ? Do we want that he feels guilty ? Because he's not documenting, implementing or debugging ? Why not to welcome him and understand his feelings - deeply ? Do we say that he's wrong ? Why don't listen to him ? This is true that there is leaders in this community. Do we really need leaders ? And please, don't kill this question, it's so easy to say : "obviously we need them !". Putting it into question is something really important, because humans used to have chiefs, leaders, presidents : it seems something widely accepted... And why leader want to lead ? And what about voting ? Isn't voting the authority of the majority on the minority ? And what if the minority is right ? Has rightness something to do with both leading or voting ? It seems that we draw a relation between both things, but is it right ?
Cheers, Samir
Internal Error
Error: Failed to obtain a free session
SqpConnectionPool(ConnectionPool)>>getSession SqpSeasideSession(KilaueaSeasideSession)>>magmaSession [] in SqpSeasideSession(KilaueaSeasideSession)
withEscapeContinuation: {[self connectionPoolClass currentSession:
self magmaSession. ^ self magmaSe...]} BlockContext>>on:do: BlockContext>>valueWithBindingsContext: BlockContext>>valueWithBindings: BindingsAccessor>>clamp: SqpSeasideSession(KilaueaSeasideSession)>>withEscapeContinuation: SqpSeasideSession(WASession)>>responseForRequest: [] in SqpSeasideSession(WASession)>>incomingRequest: {[self responseForRequest: aRequest]} BlockContext>>on:do: [] in WAProcessMonitor>>critical:ifError: {[value := aBlock on: Error do: errorBlock]} BlockContext>>ensure: [] in WAProcessMonitor>>critical:ifError: {[[value := aBlock on: Error do: errorBlock] ensure: [responseSem signal]]} [] in BlockContext>>newProcess {[self value. Processor terminateActive]} BlockContext>>on:do: BlockContext>>valueWithBindingsContext: BlockContext>>valueWithBindings:
Alexandre
Am Jan 18, 2006 um 6:19 PM schrieb Cees De Groot:
I still have that old "voting" software I once wrote as a proof-of-concept of what we could do with SqP's web of trust. I thought it'd be neat to do a round of voting about what should land in v3.9, now that the 3.9a team is considering going to beta.
The team also thought it'd be need to get some structured input, so I cleaned up the database and it's now available for voting.
The idea is simple:
- Go to http://de-1.tric.nl/seaside/sqp/list
- Login with your Squeak People account
- Create an issue or vote on issues.
You will see the number of votes you have constantly updated. Note: I haven't yet added the possibility to delete issues, and if you add an issue, you have to allocate at least one vote to it. So think before creating issues! In fact, you can't even edit an issue - which is logical, otherwise you could rig the voting (editing an issue should logically imply losing all votes that were on it before the issue).
The SqP angle is that the higher your ranking, the more votes you get
- Observers get none, Apprentice gets 5, Journeyer 10, Master 15. This
is an entirely unfounded distribution and I'm not going to debate it here ;-).
Note: this voting round serves two purposes:
- Advise, I repeat: advise, the 3.9a team. They're entirely free to
completely ignore the outcome of this stuff, although if many many many people vote for something and they don't do it, it'd be nice if they'd give a reason;
- Check whether this sort of utility is useful.
The software can be found in the SqueakPeople repository on SqueakSource.
Have fun!
Cees
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
This website doesn't work :
"Internal Error Error: Failed to obtain a free session"
- -- Damien Cassou
Hmm... apparently I need to check on that new session pool handling I added :-)
On 1/18/06, Damien Cassou damien.cassou@laposte.net wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
This website doesn't work :
"Internal Error Error: Failed to obtain a free session"
Ok, I upped the pool size to 250. Hopefully that's enough for the time being :)
(I release sessions in a finalizer for WASession, but WASession's aren't aggresively released, so 25 sessions was probably not enough for that strategy...)
Internal Error MagmaUserError: Must connect before you can commit.
MagmaSession>>commit MagmaSession>>commit: [] in SqpSeasideSession(KilaueaSeasideSession)>>withEscapeContinuation: {[self connectionPoolClass currentSession: self magmaSession. ^ self magmaSe...]} BlockContext>>on:do: BlockContext>>valueWithBindingsContext: BlockContext>>valueWithBindings: BindingsAccessor>>clamp: SqpSeasideSession(KilaueaSeasideSession)>>withEscapeContinuation: SqpSeasideSession(WASession)>>responseForRequest: [] in SqpSeasideSession(WASession)>>incomingRequest: {[self responseForRequest: aRequest]} BlockContext>>on:do: [] in WAProcessMonitor>>critical:ifError: {[value := aBlock on: Error do: errorBlock]} BlockContext>>ensure: [] in WAProcessMonitor>>critical:ifError: {[[value := aBlock on: Error do: errorBlock] ensure: [responseSem signal]]} [] in BlockContext>>newProcess {[self value. Processor terminateActive]} BlockContext>>on:do: BlockContext>>valueWithBindingsContext: BlockContext>>valueWithBindings: 2006/1/18, Cees De Groot cdegroot@gmail.com:
Ok, I upped the pool size to 250. Hopefully that's enough for the time being :)
(I release sessions in a finalizer for WASession, but WASession's aren't aggresively released, so 25 sessions was probably not enough for that strategy...)
-- Vaidotas Didžbalis
Gosh... sorry for exercising everyone's patience so much - I just changed this code from OmniBase to Magma, but did testing before unleashing it onto the world... I'll check what's wrong.
On 1/18/06, Vaidotas Didžbalis vaidasd@gmail.com wrote:
Internal Error MagmaUserError: Must connect before you can commit.
MagmaSession>>commit MagmaSession>>commit: [] in SqpSeasideSession(KilaueaSeasideSession)>>withEscapeContinuation: {[self connectionPoolClass currentSession: self magmaSession. ^ self magmaSe...]}
I guess some fluff was left in the connection pool - it growed without bounds because I had the wrong target for finalization.. Reset the pool, hope this isn't putting too many people off...
On 1/18/06, Cees De Groot cdegroot@gmail.com wrote:
Gosh... sorry for exercising everyone's patience so much - I just changed this code from OmniBase to Magma, but did testing before unleashing it onto the world... I'll check what's wrong.
On 1/18/06, Vaidotas Didžbalis vaidasd@gmail.com wrote:
Internal Error MagmaUserError: Must connect before you can commit.
MagmaSession>>commit MagmaSession>>commit: [] in SqpSeasideSession(KilaueaSeasideSession)>>withEscapeContinuation: {[self connectionPoolClass currentSession: self magmaSession. ^ self magmaSe...]}
So far there are only four items in this list of wish items at http:// de-1.tric.nl/seaside/sqp/list (not counting Lukas' joker). Is everybody so pleased or desperate or just not interested enough? Hey, it's not about signing up to do the work in this case...
I think it would be interesting to see what other people wish to be improved, changes, included, excluded or whatever -- even if it might not be realistic for 3.9.
Cheers, Adrian
On Jan 18, 2006, at 19:19 , Cees De Groot wrote:
I still have that old "voting" software I once wrote as a proof-of-concept of what we could do with SqP's web of trust. I thought it'd be neat to do a round of voting about what should land in v3.9, now that the 3.9a team is considering going to beta.
The team also thought it'd be need to get some structured input, so I cleaned up the database and it's now available for voting.
The idea is simple:
- Go to http://de-1.tric.nl/seaside/sqp/list
- Login with your Squeak People account
- Create an issue or vote on issues.
You will see the number of votes you have constantly updated. Note: I haven't yet added the possibility to delete issues, and if you add an issue, you have to allocate at least one vote to it. So think before creating issues! In fact, you can't even edit an issue - which is logical, otherwise you could rig the voting (editing an issue should logically imply losing all votes that were on it before the issue).
The SqP angle is that the higher your ranking, the more votes you get
- Observers get none, Apprentice gets 5, Journeyer 10, Master 15. This
is an entirely unfounded distribution and I'm not going to debate it here ;-).
Note: this voting round serves two purposes:
- Advise, I repeat: advise, the 3.9a team. They're entirely free to
completely ignore the outcome of this stuff, although if many many many people vote for something and they don't do it, it'd be nice if they'd give a reason;
- Check whether this sort of utility is useful.
The software can be found in the SqueakPeople repository on SqueakSource.
Have fun!
Cees
On 23-Jan-06, at 2:26 PM, Adrian Lienhard wrote:
So far there are only four items in this list of wish items at http://de-1.tric.nl/seaside/sqp/list (not counting Lukas' joker). Is everybody so pleased or desperate or just not interested enough? Hey, it's not about signing up to do the work in this case...
well I can't login to vote. SqP seems to work ok so no idea what went wrong.
tim -- tim Rowledge; tim@rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim <-------- The information went data way -------->
Strange. I'll look later today whether there's a walkback on the server or something.
In any case, Adrian's call seems to have helped, there's now a whole list of stuff. Apparently the software still has quirks, judging by the empty items, I'll clean it up when I have some time, maybe later today.
Regards,
Cees
On 1/23/06, tim Rowledge tim@rowledge.org wrote:
On 23-Jan-06, at 2:26 PM, Adrian Lienhard wrote:
So far there are only four items in this list of wish items at http://de-1.tric.nl/seaside/sqp/list (not counting Lukas' joker). Is everybody so pleased or desperate or just not interested enough? Hey, it's not about signing up to do the work in this case...
well I can't login to vote. SqP seems to work ok so no idea what went wrong.
tim
tim Rowledge; tim@rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim <-------- The information went data way -------->
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Adrian Lienhard -
Alexandre Bergel -
Andreas Raab -
Bert Freudenberg -
Blake -
Cees De Groot -
Damien Cassou -
Daniel Vainsencher -
David T. Lewis -
Giovanni Corriga -
Hilaire Fernandes -
Josh Gargus -
Lic. Edgar J. De Cleene -
Marcus Denker -
Martin Wirblat -
Michael Rueger -
Ron Teitelbaum -
Samir Saidani -
Scott A Crosby -
Stephan Rudlof -
stéphane ducasse -
tim Rowledge -
Vaidotas Didžbalis