While the scent of money is still in the mailing list, I'd like to raise a related issue. Some have suggested that the foundation shouldn't get too hung up on money, but I, for one (actually WellThot Inc.), would be willing to contribute money to fund an increased level of UNIX VM development and support, developing J3 to its fruition across platforms (including my new iPAQ), etc. Is an increased level of volunteer coordination sufficient to accomplish such things or will money and dedicated people be necessary?

And if it takes money, how might we handle it? Should such transactions be done outside the foundation, where it would probably fall to the bigwigs to fund such development, or companies could contribute a portion of one of their developer's time, or perhaps the foundation could serve to pool donations from smallwigs to fund development to achieve common goals. It would be nice to be able to earmark at least a portion of donations to support specific activities.

I think that it might be good to collectively support a core team of developers outside the current Squeak Central team.

But how do you handle the civil unrest between the volunteer Squeakers and the paid Squeakers?

Although I wouldn't mind being a paid Squeaker (and I have been paid by clients for some of my Squeak work and have paid others to assist me), I also wouldn't mind paying others to develop and maintain some of the core functionality that would allow me to pursue my own projects at a more rapid pace with a more robust and higher performing system supporting me.

What do YOU think?

-Mark Schwenk WellThot Inc.

I would very much like the idea of the foundation getting its hands on enough money to pay me to keep doing things for Squeak, rather than having to get a mundane job and only do squeak on occasion. I'd like to think that the general squeak community would like that, too!

tim

tim@sumeru.stanford.edu said:

So come on folks, humour aside, let's get moving. At this rate we'll get a Squeak Foundation going in time to celebrate the centenary of Smalltalk. Several of you out there claimed great things for this chaordic stuff, so convince me.

Note that this chaordic stuff is coming out of Northern California, so judging by your mail address you're the expert here :-).

(if you have some time, drive to Half Moon Bay and have a chat with the guys behind the Chaordic Commons).

What we all (33 people on the list) need to do now is a) read the links I've provided (and maybe add some of your own), b) think about all these principles, and - just a suggestion - post your 2 most important principles here. 33 times 2 minus overlap should give us an initial set of at least a dozen items to talk about.

The NAMA and GDA principles list start with a list of overall chaordic organizational principles. I reproduce NAMA's list here for reference. Probably one of the more important questions is: do we subscribe to these principles?

Each and every part of NAMA shall: - Be open to all individuals and institutions that fully subscribe to the purpose and principles. - Have the right to organize in any manner, at any scale, in any area, and around any issue or activity, which is relevant to and consistent with the purpose and principles. - Vest authority in and make decisions at the most local level that includes all relevant and affected parties. - Surrender only such autonomy and resources as are essential to the pursuit of the purpose and principles. - Have an equitable opportunity and responsibility to participate in discussions and deliberations. - Deliberate and make decisions by methods and bodies that represent a full diversity of views and interests and are not controlled by any single view or interest. - Deliberate and make decisions using current and objective knowledge and information derived from scientific methods and practical experience. - Have an equitable obligation to provide knowledge and information that is relevant and essential to the realization of the purpose and principles and that is collected in a way that has minimal impact on confidentiality and competitive position. - Maintain the highest standards of credibility and ethical conduct, fair and accurate dissemination of information and full disclosure and accountability for its affairs.

The NAMA principles then go on with practices. With a substition of "Northern Atlantic Marine life" for "Squeak", you'd probably have a decent outline for SqF as well (both NAMA and SqF are there to combine potentially conflicting interests in protecting a common good):

PRINCIPLES OF PRACTICE - Be a vehicle for those of diverse communities, professions, experience, knowledge, viewpoints, power and resources to join together with others in pursuit of the purpose. - Encourage adaptability, diversity, flexibility, learning and innovation in all governance processes and practices. - Encourage marine uses and practices that ensure the long-term productivity and diversity of the Northwest Atlantic marine system. - Accept responsibility for the stewardship of the Northwest Atlantic marine ecosystem to ensure that succeeding generations will have an equal or better opportunity to benefit form its resources. - Recognize that the marine ecosystem is a public resource and that access to this resource is a privilege, not a right. - Engage in mutual learning to deepen respect and trust in one another and to improve our understanding and appreciation of the marine system. - Resolve conflict constructively and cooperatively without resorting to social, ecological or physical violence. - Encourage practices, behaviors and uses of technology that are consistent with the purpose and principles and control practices, behaviors and uses of technology that are inconsistent with the purpose and principles. - Protect marine uses or interests consistent with the purpose and principles from being substantially sacrificed to, or eliminated by, any other uses or interests.

Personally, I think that this list adapted for the protection of Squeak is quite to the point - in a sense, both an ecosystem and a piece of open source software are some common good that deserve protection.

(ok, I am going a bit over the suggested length of 2 principles in your shortlist, but then as Chief Whip that's my privilege, OK?). Specifically for a software-based organization, we should think about whether we want something about sharing code here in the principles or not (I'm not sure - I tend to think not but I want to bring up the point nevertheless).

Ok, Tim, are you clear now on what's up?

tim@sumeru.stanford.edu said:

Best of all, they are simple and intelligable.

The B group is the standard set of chaordic principles, although I miss the "most local level principle" that's under 3. and 4. in the Principles of Organization of NAMA. Because I think SqF runs the risk of being an organization with lots of levels, if succesful, I think it's important to state this explicitely from the onset.

I think CAIA's "B" group and NAMA's Principles of Organization are mostly the same and probably both would serve well for a first iteration. CAIA's group "A" and NAMA's Principles of Practice are also quite close, I personally think the NAMA list is closer to what we would need for SqF.

SoL has a couple of interesting and - I think - applicable things as well:

Adaptive Governance - Continually conceive, implement, and practice governance concepts and processes which encourage adaptability, diversity, flexibility, and innovation.

Acknowledgment - Openly and fairly acknowledge intellectual contributions to Concepts, Theories, and Practices, both from within and from outside the community.

Sarkela wrote:

Sounds great Tim. Every political group needs a target for assassins. While you are at it, could you wipe out free will as well?

Too late. The religious-right/microsoft/murdoch-press/republicrat axis has already done that. But you knew that; it was predestined, after all.

tim