On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 11:07:22PM +0100, goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
> Hi Joshua!
> 
> "Joshua 'Schwa' Gargus" <schwa at cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 03:36:24PM +0100, goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
> > > Hi Andreas!
> > > 
> > > "Andreas Raab" <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> > > > Hi G?ran,
> > > > 
> > > > [Comments from the back seat ;-]
> > > 
> > > ;-)
> > >  
> > > > > > Your proposal will help us remember that, yes, so-and-so proposed
> > > > > > such-and-such, but won't help code into the image unless there is
> > > > > > a change in attitude about what gets in and what doesn't.
> > > > > 
> > > > > What do you mean with "change in attitude"?
> > > > 
> > > > I guess Josh means the same thing that I mean - a concentration on pure
> > > > minimalism. For example, your quote says "as long as it doesn't introduce
> > > > inter-package dependencies". Now there are packages where this is perfectly
> > > > reasonable; for example if one would take the facial animation package and
> > > > hook it up with speech synthesis you'd get plenty of dependencies and
> > > > rightfully so.
> > > 
> > > Well, don't make everything so darn black and white! Of course we are
> > > talking about judgement calls here. But you must surely agree with the
> > > long term goal of partitioning the image into packages with well
> > > understood interdependencies? I surely hope.
> > 
> > Definitely.  But let's take a less controversial example.  What if I made some
> > improvements to the facial animation package such as fixing bugs, writing 
> > comments, and adding more examples.  This wouldn't work against modularization,
> > but I still get the feeling the getting it accepted would be an uphill battle.
> 
> A *very simple answer*: NO. :-)

Yay!

> 
> If you fix bugs (most likely to not introduce messy deps), write
> comments (does *not* introduce messy deps) and add examples (most likely
> to not introduce messy deps) then it would simply be a god damn dream to
> harvest!
> 
> So why on earth do you think it would be an uphill battle to get it
> accepted?! Is it because FIXes etc don't seem to get into the stream?

No, FIXes seem to get in OK.  

> This would be a natural conclusion. But it has very little if almost
> nothing to do with any "policy" - its just that the harvesting process
> is stalling!

No, I've had a couple of FIXes get in.  But if I were to change how the
EToy tiles work, I'd expect difficulty getting the change in.  Since you
assure me that this is not true, I believe you.

> We have been trying to get it running better and it is better now - but
> people are simply not harvesting enough (or fast enough). I am
> personally listed as a harvester but I have no time to put there! I am
> 100% busy writing lenghty emails trying to do what I call "community
> nursing" and trying to get SM1.1 into the water.
> 

Ok, I'll shut up now.  And try to find time to do some harvesting.

> [SNIP]
> > > Well, I hope not. I just want people to realize that we are in a
> > > different situation now.
> > > There is no SqC anymore. Simple as that. As Guides we will of course try
> > > to revise the mission statement - I have already promised to work for
> > > that. But we can not "promise" to work in a certain direction just
> > > because SqC did that, everybody must understand that. We can only work
> > > in those directions that the community is showing real interest in
> > > going. 
> > 
> > Isn't it still showing interest in this direction?
> > 
> > > And by that I mean not just posting on the list "Please go in
> > > this direction.". 
> > 
> > I never asked that.  It was more like "Please acknowledge that a
> > substantial number of Squeakers are going in this direction".  Even if
> > it is not the majority of Squeakers, it is still a significant
> > proportion; very few other open source projects have such a high
> > proportion.  Since it is one of the things that makes Squeak unique,
> > why not be explicit about it?
> 
> And what direction are we talking about? And what other directions do we
> have out there in the community? Please don't turn this into some silly
> "war" over which direction should be acknowledged in the mission
> statement. We will give it our best shot (to revise the mission
> statement) - please let's drop it for some time to let us do that and
> then we will see how it looks. ;-)

Looking forward to it :-)

Best,
Joshua




> 
> [BIG SNIP]
> > > I am starting to suspect you will not be pleased with us until we
> > > promise to simply just continue on the same path that SqC/Alan staked
> > > out. And I will not do that. Sorry.
> > > 
> > > What if *I* have a grand vision that simply has nothing to do with your
> > > vision?! What makes your/Alan's vision more important to pursue than
> > > mine? In short - what makes you or Alan better than me?
> >  
> > Well, leaving aside the connotations of "better", Alan's vision has
> > resulted in Smalltalk, which is a pretty big feather in his cap (heh
> > heh, I just had a mental image involving a green felt hat and a huge
> > peacock feather :-).  When he says that we can do far better, he has
> > more credibility than practically anyone else.
> 
> Well, I knew I was going to get an answer like that. It is so obvious -
> who does Goran think he is? Compared to Alan Kay? ;-)
> 
> The point is - this is an open source project. Nobody pays anyone. We
> are all here for different reasons. But we all want to make Squeak
> better. The best. In many different directions. But improvement is
> something we can all vouch for.
> 
> And in the end we do what we want to do. Not because someone tells us -
> but because we want to. I as a Guide do not want to stake out a
> direction for all you other guys. Who am I to do that?
> 
> > For myself, I don't claim to be better than anyone.
> 
> Not me neither. Ok, I give up on all this. My arguments are totally
> exhausted. If I haven't managed to get my points through at this time I
> will never do. As I have said - we will revise the mission statement.
> And as I have also said - harvesting *is* going forward. Sure it has
> been lagging. We are trying to get it working again better. No there is
> no "hidden policy" about what goes in or not. But there is a general
> direction about partitioning the image.
> 
> And you know what? When a package is broken out of the image there will
> be a maintainer (or Steward if it is an official package) that will deal
> with leading the process of improving it - NOT THE GUIDES.
> 
> > Best,
> > Joshua
> 
> regards, G?ran