Hi Ingo!

This post is very long. I still hope that people can take the time to
read it through. If you can't then at least read the last paragraphs.

Ingo Hohmann <ingo at 2b1.de> wrote:
> Hi Göran,
> 
> I have been quiet on this subject so far, because I really don't much 
> about the background of this long discussion, as I really just started 
> to look nito Squeak just before this thread started.
> 
> I'll be talking to the guides as a whole, based on what I have read in 
> this thread.
> 
> So, what follows is my opinion, based on the facts known to me and my 
> own interpretation of these facts.

Hehe! Sure, no problem. I will try to be gentle. :-) (in retrospect I
think I failed that, sorry)

> goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
> > Hi all!
> > 
> > "Andreas Raab" <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> > 
> >>>>What I feel _really_ unhappy about is the complete absence 
> >>>>of any vision (and action) which goes beyound "hack it up in
> >>>>small bits".
> > 
> > Well, I have a vision. But the Guides never promised the community a
> > Vision. We are trying to moderate, enable, coordinate. Not lead or
> > dictate. Yes, I agree - we more or less end up leading anyway - but it
> > still isn't the intention of The Guides.
> 
> It seems there is a _real_ communication problem, right from the start:
> 
>  From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.44 [gcide]:
> 
>    Guide \Guide\, n. [OE. giae, F. guide, It. guida. See {Guide},
>       v. t.]
>       1. A person who leads or directs another in his way or
>          course, as in a strange land; one who exhibits points of
>          interest to strangers; a conductor; also, that which
>          guides; a guidebook.
>          [1913 Webster]
> 
>       2. One who, or that which, directs another in his conduct or
>          course of life; a director; a regulator.
>          [1913 Webster]
> [...]
> 
> If you didn't want to guide, you should have sticked to "The Experienced 
> Squeakers" that's a real nice name, saying nothing - so noone would have 
> had the idea that you really want to live up to your name.

Well, ok. First, have you read the mission statement? Here it is:

	http://swiki.squeakfoundation.org/squeakfoundation/71

And the name "Guides" was probably invented by... who was it? Don't
remember.
Perhaps it was me. The idea was to have a name that was less
"Dictating". So the intention was to have a name that doesn't make it
look that we should *do* everything (and that includes taking decisions)
but to try to guide the community through the sea.

I thought it was quite a good name. And it stuck. And there were tons of
other names being discussed. Well, there you go.

Btw, that mission statement is pretty good IMHO. But I agree we can do
better - we obviously haven't done good enough when it comes to the
decision making part etc.

I can tell you right now that if any of you guys out there think that
being a Guide must be real fun and that you could surely do a much
better job than that "whatever his name" - then step right up to the
plate!
If you have read the mission statement you know that the intention was
to rotate people. And I can gladly rotate out at this point if you think
it would be better with someone else in my place.

And if you don't feel like stepping up - then please, be just a bit
patient with us that did. Ok?

> How could you choose the "The Guides" when guiding has been the last 
> thing you want to do? It's really beyond me.

Well, its all about definitions. I want us to "guide" but obviously you
think that is the same as "make all the decisions" and I don't.

> > We don't claim to know the Single Truth about what Squeak "should be".
> 
> And noone thinks you should.

Well, people are asking for a Grand Vision and we don't have that. We
have goals and those have been clearly described in the mission
statement.

> > And frankly - whichever Truth we would present there would be people
> > dropping out of the community because they don't agree with that single
> > truth.
> 
> Maybe. And maybe you would win others who are in favor with that single 
> truth.

So what do you want? Do you want us to "come up" with a Truth? Ok, if it
makes you happier - read the darn mission statement and then stamp the
word "Truth" over it. I can't understand this sudden urge from all you
guys that we - just 6 of you guys - should suddenly come up with some
Grand Vision. We all have different small ideas of what we want to use
Squeak for - There Is No Single Truth! How many times do I need to
repeat this. Ahhh, I am getting upset again - calm down, count to 10....
:-) :-)

> But very likely if you had a _vision_ you could win even people who 
> don't agree with your single truth. Because a vision is even greater 
> than that, and a real vision is contagious.

Of course it would be cool if we all shared a Grand Vision - But We
Don't! Ok?

> And _surely_ without a vision you will loose most people, because 
> without a vision, or at least a communicated long term goal, people will 
> lose confidence in Squeak.

A long term goal... well, there are some goals in the mission statement.
Read it.

> Noone and nothing can be really alive without a vision.

Well, I have my personal ideas etc. But that is not shared by others. I
am alive. And so are the rest of us. But it still doesn't make it into a
*shared* vision.

> >>>Well, that *is* the strategy. One I'm all in favour of. 
> >>
> >>You are confirming my worst fears.
> > 
> > Why? Personally the strategy is one that I am also much in favour of. If
> > you think it is a bad strategy then I would like to know why.
> 
> A strategy, as well as it may be, is worth nothing without a goal that 
> is to be reached by that strategy. And from all you _say_ this seems to 
> be missing

No, no, no. There are goals. Read the mission statement. I know that you
are new in the community so I really shouldn't be bashing you on the
head like this - so don't take it personal. I think those that have been
around a little longer know the goals with the current strategy.

[SNIP]
> > Come on. We know that. But hey - why don't you just sign up as a
> > Harvester and *help out* then?
> > The thing we *do know* is that we simply need to get better
> > infrastructure before we selfimplode. 
> > 
> > So yes, I personally think SM is more important right now than TrueType.
> > Why? Because it is the enabler to get all those hundreds of talented
> > developers engaged in the process again making 10 other TrueType
> > packages to pick from!
> 
> Hey, you _can_ do it!

Do what? Tell you my *personal* ideas and vision? Of course. Just ask
for them.
But they are *personal*, nothing else.
 
[SNIP]
> >>clear to me that the original vision of Squeak is really dead today. "Thank
> >>you" for making this so utterly obvious.
> > 
> > It's not dead. Squeak has just gotten a whole bunch of other stuff going
> > too.
> 
> Then, _please_ communicate it in a way that will get through to others.

Communicate what? I am communicating like a madman right now - what else
do you want me to do?

> Just imagine you have bought a new car a few months ago. One morning, 
> while looking out your window, you realize that the hood of your car is 
> open, engine parts are lying all over the, and someone is just now 
> ripping your engine into parts. How would you feel? --- That's exactly 
> how "multimedia squeakers" are feeling right now.

Hardly. You are *very* far from the truth here. Did you for example know
that the modularisation effort started under SqC - the mother of all
"multimedia Squeakers"? And did you know when that started? In 2001. So
we have been working in this direction for at least TWO YEARS. And we
have all agreed that this the way to go.

Let that sink in.

> Now imagine you'd've got a telephone call the other day, telling you 
> that there may be something wrong with the brakes in your car, and while 
> everything seems to work well, there's a real possibility that your 
> brakes will break before too long - ahh, and by the way, tomorrow 
> morning someone will come to your house and check your engine.
> 
> Though the look out of your window reveals the same, your _feeling_ 
> about it would be utterly different, would it not?

You lost me completely here.

> >>Bye,
> >>  - Andreas
> > 
> > 
> > This whole discussion is disturbing me. I thought we were doing "ok" -
> > sure, the Guides aren't saving the world. We are just 6 of you guys. We
> > try to do the right thing and we try to listen and moderate discussions
> > - boil stuff down to decisions etc. Obviously Andreas think we are a
> > complete failure - he wants us to have a Grand Vision. He wants us to
> > lead the charge into the Future.
> > 
> > I don't know what to say. Perhaps we are failing and if all of you think
> > that then hey - speak up! I don't want to put a lot of work into stuff
> > that the community don't want... In that case I have better things to
> > do.
> 
> I'm sorry I can't say anything about the work you do, but I strongly 
> believe that your work really *is* ok.
> 
> The problem is, that, by the very name "The Guides" you have accepted a 
> responsibility you seem not to have accepted. But now everyone will 
> measure you by the perceived perceived role of "The Guides" and this 
> includes *guiding*. And this, in turn, communication.

We are guiding. We are communicating. So much in fact that not much else
get done!
Of course there are things we need to do better - the goal we set up
that included making sure decisions were taken etc hasn't worked out
that good.

I will post a modest proposal about that shortly with a new subject
line.

> In closing, let me state some thoughts of mine ...
> 
> What think of when hearing the term "The Guides" (outside of the scope 
> of squeak)
> - A group of people who knowledge on a given topic, and a vision based 
> on this vision of what should be done, where one should head to.

Sounds good. And what you call "vision" is then perhaps exactly what we
have described in our mission statement.
And let it be noted that noone objected or had any negative comments
whatsoever when we formed the Guides and posted that mission statement.
Everything was obviously fine then.

> How "The Guides" have represented themselves on this thread (at least 
> most of the time)
> - Hey, we have some knowledge about squeak, but don't give dime on where 
>   it's headed, we just want to code, the rest is yours.

No. If this is the impression you are getting then apparently something
is wrong.
I still think you haven't read the mission statement.

If we weren't giving a dime then we sure as hell wouldn't have signed up
to be Guides.

> And now let me try to summarize a VISION STATEMENT, that to the best of 
> my knowledge seems to communicate what "The Guides" _really_ want for 
> Squeak. (And btw, you'll see that Multimedia Squeakers may well see this 
> as a valid vision for all).
> 
> Our vision is for Squeak to be a very rich development platform for all 
> sorts of developers, from CGI to top notch Multimedia.
> 
> Sadly we've found that to be able to lead Squeak into the next decade, 
> we have to do some ground work first, like in every garden we need to 
> weed first, so that the base squeak will be able to service the 
> multimedia application we want to see. (Look at it this way, would _you_ 
> stick a 500PS dragster engine into an unprepared Volkswagen Beetle.)
> 
> Like always, there'll be a little rocky going ahead, please bear with us.
> 
> 
> 
> Stick this up as the first in the guides swiki page, and I guess you'll 
> have done quite a lot against the uncertainty in the community.

Well, the very first link at the Guides page is to the mission
statement:

	http://swiki.squeakfoundation.org/squeakfoundation/70

> Thank you for reading this far ;-)
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> 
> Ingo

Ok, Ingo - sorry for any heated words etc. I am definitely not annoyed
or irritated at you personally, so please forgive me if I gave that
impression. Ok? :-)

I hope I cleared up some things at least. And I am always all ears. For
example, we could make the Guides page a bit more "direct" with a few
bullets on top - perhaps people just don't have the time to read the
mission statement. And I will try to "take charge" of getting a better
decision process in place ASAP.

But still - if what we wrote in the mission statement isn't enough for
you regarding this "thirst" for a Grand Vision - then I don't really
know what to do.

regards, Göran