Squeakfoundation May 2001

squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org

29 participants
36 discussions

Away on a trip
by cg＠cdegroot.com 24 May '01

24 May '01

Hmmm, dead silence again. Well, as nothing special seems to be happening here I think I will take that invitation by IBM and hop over to NY to attend their Linux tour.... I'll be back next Sunday. It'd be absolutely great if you people could agree on the principles (my suggestion is to agree on what's up currently and move on, but I won't call it a vote, Andreas K. ;-)). The next bit, Participants. I think we should invite Smalltalk vendors at this point (I already invited James Robertson) to chime in. Most ST vendors seem to agree that the correct approach at themselves more profitable is through a "grow the cake" strategy, not through a "grow my share of the cake" strategy. Therefore, Squeak could be a great common ground for a number of ST vendors to cooperate in growing the cake by making Squeak better-known, better-quality and maybe donating a couple of goodies to the code base. Other participants: individuals, Smalltalk consulting companies, Smalltalk using institutions, add-on builders/resellers, ... The big question: do we need different membership statuses to go with that and how do we keep everything fair? -- Cees de Groot http://www.cdegroot.com <cg(a)cdegroot.com> GnuPG 1024D/E0989E8B 0016 F679 F38D 5946 4ECD 1986 F303 937F E098 9E8B

6 7

Re: [Squeakfoundation]The Natives are Restless
by John Briggs 24 May '01

24 May '01

On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 11:41:50PM -0400, Paul Fernhout wrote: > Dan Ingalls wrote: > > Instead, why not > > > > Declare that SqF exists, > > === purpose === > > I won't stand in the way of forging ahead on the basis you outlined, but > I suggest that since Cees is traveling we should at least wait for his > input as well. > > I think a lot of progress has been made by just having a statement of > purpose. > > I'm not sure this is the very latest, but from the Wiki: > : To assist in the evolution of Squeak into its ultimate expression > : as an exquisite personal and collaborative > : computing environment that is open, well supported, > : and freely available across the great majority of > : modern platforms and operating systems. > > That is certainly a good start and perhaps it is enough to govern a > small amount of funding (as a sort of iterative prototyping ideal). > > At a minimum, I would suggest that if SqF is declared to exist, it be > declared to exist for that purpose. And by default, I feel it should > also be declared to exist with the latest version of the principles > discussed here (in the thread by John Briggs). Or, at a bare minimum it > should at least just go with the generic principles at: > http://www.chaordic.org/what_princ.html > > === leadership === > > I would also suggest that (no offense intended) we not expect SqueakC > members to be in charge of SqueakF. This is in part because SqueakC has > lots of other things to do, and in part because what's the point of just > having a second SqueakC with the same exact strengths and weaknesses? > (Liason or advisory roles is a different story, as would also be the > situation for ex-SqueakC people.) > > As an alternative, I could live with Tim Rowledge as "dictator for > life". > Paul as someone who is a stranger to all except via the squeak mailing lists I second your idea for Tim Rowledge to be president of the SqF as he was the first to volunteer. I also support Dan Ingalls to be liason with SqC. We will also need liason with StSq. Where would we be without Cees to give us all a prod and keep the ball rolling? I do agree with Paul about us all being initially volunteers until we can determine what sort of support structures are necessary for us to function. Like others have said SqueakF will benefit the whole Squeak community and will enable us to see a greater acceptance of Squeak in the software industry as a whole. To benefit and propagate these ideals we must hasten slowly to ensure everything is done correctly because we will only have one chance to get it right once we leave the safe nvironment of the Squeak community. Regards John Briggs _______________________________________________ Squeakfoundation mailing list Squeakfoundation(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation

1 0

RE: [Squeakfoundation]Nudge, nudge!
by Raab, Andreas 16 May '01

16 May '01

Cees wrote: > However, it seems that there's not much interest in this > process. [...] > I think the results will be much better if we, as a community, > do this. I agree but you do have to keep in mind that not the entire Squeak community is represented on this list. The people on this list are (the few?!) which either noticed your message on the Squeak mailing list (I did not) or found it by explicitly asking somebody (I asked Dan when he mentioned it). So, for getting more involvement from the entire community, I would suggest to: * Make another announcement to the Squeak mailing list, explicitly inviting people to join this mailing list for discussing SqF issues (maybe this could come from Dan to give it more visibility) * Explicitly invite some people (like Dave Thomas; any others?!) who have shown interest in building an SqF but are unlikely to follow the Squeak mailing list due to its heavy traffic * Post regular (weekly/monthly) progress reports to the Squeak mailing list I consider the latter to be very important - even if such a progress report just says "we're stalling" it's still important for people to know. And reporting about progress will help avoid the Stable Squeak mistake of being some mystical secret society where (except from a few initiated) nobody knows what's going on. Do we have any voluntears (ouch! the Disney background :-) for summarizing the current state of discussions?! Cheers, - Andreas

9 15

Advogato?
by John M McIntosh 16 May '01

16 May '01

Some of you might find the following site interesting. http://www.advogato.org/ >Welcome to Advogato, the free software developer's advocate. The >goal of the site is to serve as a community resource for free >software developers around the world, as well as a research testbed >for work on group trust metrics. > -- -- =========================================================================== John M. McIntosh <johnmci(a)smalltalkconsulting.com> 1-800-477-2659 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com ===========================================================================

2 1

smalltalk.net
by John M McIntosh 16 May '01

16 May '01

FYI in case someone wants to pursue this. smalltalk.net is currently allocated to a squatter. It expires Oct 4th 2001. At 3:22 PM +0000 2/9/01, Florian Bruhin wrote: >Delivered-To: stlkjohn(a)vrx.net >X-Originating-IP: [165.222.186.194] >From: "Florian Bruhin" <chinadns(a)hotmail.com> >To: johnmci(a)smalltalkconsulting.com >Subject: Re: smalltalk.net >Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 15:22:57 -0000 >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Feb 2001 15:22:57.0345 (UTC) >FILETIME=[2E324310:01C092AC] >Status: > >It is ! > >The negotiating basis for this domain name is USD 10'000.-- > >Best Regards > >Florian Bruhin also maybe flo_bruhin(a)hotmail.com, see whois for information, which as an address and phone number in Mettmenstetten -- -- =========================================================================== John M. McIntosh <johnmci(a)smalltalkconsulting.com> 1-800-477-2659 Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com ===========================================================================

1 0

[Fwd: [JDEV] Jabber DevZone News - Foundation Meeting Summary]
by Michael Rueger 15 May '01

15 May '01

FYI, I just saw that on the jabber developers list and thought it might be an interesting read. Michael Jabber DevZone wrote: > > Foundation Meeting Summary > > The following was posted by stpeter(a)jabber.org via the Jabber DevZone web site (http://dev.jabber.org/): > > Meeting Summary > The main points discussed in the meeting were as follows: > > The Jabber Foundation will be similar to the Apache Foundation, except > that membership in the Jabber Foundation will be more open (Apache is > invitation-only). > Membership in the Jabber Foundation will be free. You will not have to > pay any money to be a member. However, membership will be based on > merit: members will be people who are actively contributing to the > Jabber community (by writing software, creating documentation, running > Jabber servers, participating on the mailing lists, etc.), not just > people who have expressed an interest in the technology. New members > must be accepted by the existing membership of the Foundation. How > exactly this will work at the beginning (i.e., right now there are no > members) is yet to be determined. We will probably accept just about > any active participant in the Jabber community at first. An > application page for this purpose will be made available in the new > few days. > In addition to regular Members, the Foundation will also solicit the > involvement of Sponsors, which will be corporations that make a > monetary contribution to support the operations of the Foundation. > Sponsors will *not* receive special consideration with regard to > technical discussions that occur within the Foundation, although they > may receive promotional opportunities for marketing purposes and > such. > The Foundation will be led by a Board of Directors, which will > initially consist of Jeremie Miller, Michael Bauer (VP of Open > Alliances at Jabber.com), and three additional board members who are > currently being recruited. The Board will not make technical decisions > for Jabber, but will manage external relationships and set up the > structure by which Members of the Foundation (probably in the form of > Jabber Interest Groups) will make technical decisions. > No more than 15% of the membership may come from any one > organization. > The point of the Foundation (above and beyond the existing jabber.org) > is primarily to open up decision-making with regard to the technical > direction of the Jabber protocol and community, and secondarily to > enable jabber.org to have an independent source of funding (through > sponsorships) so it can provide infrastructure (e.g., dedicated test > machines) that will benefit the Jabber community as a whole. > > Discussion Log > To read a transcript of the discussion, visit > http://perl.jabber.org/logs/conference.jabber.org/foundation/2001-05-09.html. > > Next Meeting > The next scheduled meeting for discussion related to the Jabber > Foundation will be held in the foundation(a)conference.jabber.org room > this Wednesday, the 9th of May, at 18:00 UTC/GMT (the same time of day > as the last meeting). If meeting at this time of day is a problem for > you, please inform Peter Saint-Andre (email/JID: stpeter(a)jabber.org), > since we are open to meeting at different times of day in order to > accommodate the maximum number of interested participants. > > http://jabber.org/?oid=1427 > _______________________________________________ > jdev mailing list > jdev(a)jabber.org > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev

1 0

Foundation Principles
by John Briggs 13 May '01

13 May '01

Cees, I have plagiarised the statement fof principles from the GEODATA link. I personally feel that they have would fulfill our needs better than the NAMA principles. Please review the attcahed file for comments. HTH John Briggs

3 4

Nudge, nudge!
by Jörn Eyrich 13 May '01

13 May '01

I have just finished reading up on what has happened so far. Things seem to be stalled. Is everybody waiting for Dan Ingalls's announced list of projects and processes? My stab at two most important principles: * have clear deliverables for each activity (code in the distribution image, documents, whatever) * accurately document the current status But I admit I have difficulties with this chaordic thing (I nearly fainted when I read that many organizations take a year or more to go through the process...). Maybe we should just all blurt out what we want to see in terms of activities, and draw abstract concepts from that later, if we want. I'll just start: * First, let's change the purpose from "To assist in the evolution" to "Drive the evolution" Ok, granted, that was still on meta level, but here goes: I want the Squeak Foundation ... * to appoint a person as "keeper of the VM" for each platform this person is responsible to provide an up-to-date VM to a central location and a list of supported/unsupported features of this particular platform (Sound, Tablet, whatever) (typpical example: when ian piumartas releases new sources, take patches from lex spoon's patches page, apply them, ship new vm; when an update changes the interpreter, rebuild vm and ship) * in a similar vein, to strive for a full implementation of all the existing features that are possible on a respective platform * to modularize the image (however that may look) and then maintain a small baseline image and add-on modules * to maintain a web-based defect tracking system for the bits distributed by it * appoint someone(s) to harvest the list for contributions/fixes * keep some sort of regression test suite to help prevent bit rot from release to release * have an easy way to accept project proposals/requests and let people vote on what the want most * to be different from the squeak mailing list in terms of ... well, I don't know exactly how to explain it - I have a feeling that often, on the list someone suggests something, zillions of people agree, and then nothing happens; SqF should say "we want xyz (New Compiled Methods, Block Closures, Jitter, a slicker Look, get rid of Apple's fonts, ...), and then go for it, (let someone) create it, and then integrate it * connected to that are rules for decision-making - a broad discussion is already possible on the mailing list - decisions should be made in a smaller circle * now then, how do we select that small circle? voting? who can vote? all list-members? I like the Apache foundation's approach of inviting members. of course, then, how do we select the initial member(s)? I suggest let's start with "President Tim", or maybe SqC could choose? or maybe (probably!) somebody has a different idea On the other hand, I don't want the Squeak Foundation ... * to only be a philosophizing (?) debating club * to be like STIC - can't really describe that, too - it's just that the scent of irrelevance surrounds it What else should be thought of: * how to work with Stable Squeak World Tour, Camp Smalltalk, whoever else? I realize much of this is easier said than done. And some of it may not be desirable to most people. Please say so, I think it is as important to know what you do NOT want as to know what you want. If enough people say what they would like to see, eventually something will emerge that most people want. If not, we can scrap the Foundation anyway.

2 4

Documentation Plan
by Dan Shafer 13 May '01

13 May '01

I'll volunteer to be the Editor-in-Chief for SqF if nobody else wants the job. In that capacity, I'll be the clearing-house for official docs, the keeper of the master task list of things that need documentation, the editor of docs for consistency, and probably some other stuff I'm not thinking about. ===== ------- Dan Shafer, Author and Community Consultant ^. .^ | Commentator on Community, Web Building, Nanotech ='= | Sr. Co-Editor, Online Community Report | Author, NanoTech, MegaQuake: Business Implications of Squeak| Nanotechnology (Spring 2002), Wiley, ISBN 047120045X ------- http://www.gui.com (major update Spring 2001) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/

1 0

Proposal: vote for Purpose
by cg＠cdegroot.com 13 May '01

13 May '01

I've reviewed the Swiki page, and I think the best proposal is Dwight's: > To assist in the evolution of Squeak into its ultimate expression as > an exquisite personal and collaborative computing environment that is > open, well supported, and freely available across the great majority > of modern platforms and operating systems. mostly because it is a single sentence, it is balanced between concrete (Squeak) and open-ended (whatever may evolve from what we now call Squeak), and has a bit less buzz than Paul's version ;-) . Are there people who seriously object to this purpose? If not, I propose we make it version 1 and go on with Principles. It's an iterative process, after all, so we can always come back to this point. -- Cees de Groot http://www.cdegroot.com <cg(a)cdegroot.com> GnuPG 1024D/E0989E8B 0016 F679 F38D 5946 4ECD 1986 F303 937F E098 9E8B

7 10

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Squeakfoundation May 2001