Hi Lex!

First of all - I want to apologize to you Lex for my previous reply to
you about namespaces. I was annoyed at the time and went too far. I
apologize for that. Lex, you and I we tend to have email communication
problems related to our style of communcation I believe.

But I assure you that I value your views - and you do influence me quite
a lot in the SM department for example, don't think otherwise. So I will
at least try hard to not end up there again, ok?

Now back to the subject at hand.

"Lex Spoon" <lex at cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> This coup is illegitimate.  I hope that the Squeak community does not
> fall for this power grab, and that they remember this incident well. 
> This power is neither legitimate nor a good idea.

Well, I disagee of course. :)

> If there is a Squeak reorganization, we should hear about it from Squeak
> Central itself.  That has not happened.

There is no SqC. I explained in detail in other posts in this thread how
SqC handed over the "power" to the Guides (and at that time SqC had more
of a leadership in mind I think, but we thought that Guides concept
could work better - a more humble approach) back at OOPSLA 2002 IIRC.

We do have the support from at least 2 more members of former SqC (not
counting Michael) - we just got some private email about that. Those
members and others former SqC members will just have to step forward on
their own though.

> This comment about Squeak Foundation supporting them is flatly wrong. 
> The new Squeak Foundation does not even exist yet--there is only a
> mailing list discussing the formation of such a thing.  The only way
> such a fledgeling proto-organization could support such a group, is
> through unanimous agreement of the members.  Not only is such agreement
> lacking, but the idea was never circulated at all.  It wasn't even
> discussed in general, much less was a specific list of names sent
> around.

No, I agree that SqF, as in "all people on that mailinglist", was not
approached in forming this.
I wrote:

"One important thing though - the former Guides and Stephane Ducasse
(leading the SqF formation process) stands behind this new group and
support us."

I never said SqF supports us. Or perhaps you are referring to some other
comment I am missing.

Now, this is an interim solution. I drove the process (by mailing around
quite a bit) and thought that a swift expedience was of more importance
than ending up in yet another catch-22 situation discussing on the SqF
list, which also btw is not yet a "legitimate" forum. It is a selection
of people known to be long time Squeakers - but surely some are missed.
There is no SqF as you yourself write, that can grant us this position.

Now, as I also wrote - as soon as SqF gets its gear together - they will
relieve us from this (not yet so rewarding if I might say so) duty.

Please see the sincere intent of this group.

> The proposed "in" list is not representative.  Where are the educators
> and education researchers?  They are Squeak's raison d'etre.

There are TONS of interest groups and if we would include one for each
such group the group would simply be too large. But what we are already
doing in this area is to set up "contact persons", one from each other
large and important Squeak related project. Think Croquet, Tweak,
Seaside, Squeakland etc. So this is definitely an important aspect.

Please do give us some benefit of the doubt here and let us show you we
are not a bunch of evil doers. :)

>  And where
> are the people representing *my* views on how Squeak should move
> forward?  Am I supposed to send supplications to a private mailing list?
>  Get real.  I have been hoping for a new Squeak organization to support
> *more* Squeakers than merely squeak-dev.  This effort moves in the wrong
> direction, and represents only a subset of squeak-dev, which is itself a
> small subset of the Squeak community.

No, no, no... the new mailinglist is NOT a forum for expressing views
and discussions about the future of Squeak. squeak-dev is and should
always be IMHO. The only reasons for that new address is so that people
can:

- Reach us all in a simple way.
- Make sure we aren't missing something very important on squeak-dev.

That is ALL there is to it.

And as I described above, we are intent on connecting much more with the
other "satellite" communities depending on Squeak.

> Overall, of the three tiers of support that a true leadership structure
> of Squeak should have--Squeak Central, Squeak Foundation, and the
> general community--this group has none.  It has no legitimacy except
> outside its own claims.  They can say they are our commanders all they
> like, but it will never make it so.

I think we *do* have the support of SqC (even though it doesn't exist
anymore) - at least three prominent previous members of it. And I and
Doug got that support even back when we were part of creating the
Guides.

SqF doesn't exists yet - but Stephane and Michael starting that
initiative supports us. And I do believe most of the members do too. But
that is just my belief.

The general community? Well, speak up. That is the only way we will
really know. Given all we have been doing and are doing for the
community I really think most people realize we are "good guys" with
good intent. Really.

> And what is the point of this power grab, anyway?  There is no crisis! 

Well, a lot of people would say there is a steady ongoing crisis.
Harvesting not working, endless debates and no decisional body. There
are tons of issues IMHO. But it has been like this for so long so
perhaps it doesn't appear as an acute crisis. But I still think we are
in a crisis.

> The community has done well over the years by two approaches: put up
> services that people can voluntarily use, and--when we have to agree on
> something--discuss it on the mailing list until a rough concensus is
> reached.  For examples of the first, witness the swiki, SqueakMap, BFAV,
> SqueakPeople, and SqueakSource.  For examples of the second, consider
> the harvesting process.  What excuse is there for someone in the group
> to start bossing the rest of us around?  We don't need a tyrant,
> temporary or otherwise.

There is no "bossing around" going to happen. That is just silly. And we
are no tyrants, I think everyone knows that. Really, do you *really*
think we are going to do that? Give us some credit, please.

> The only plausible reason I can think of for this power grab -- and it's
> regrettably ugly -- is that this is an attempt to sidestep annoying
> people on squeak-dev who disagree with people on the designated list. 

No, no, no... totally not so. But what is the "designated list"?

And to prove you wrong Lex (just picking one issue I know we have been
having our differences on), I want to cooperate with you on SM and
universes. Are you interested in joining me in that endevour?

I value your views and insights even if we have our different
convictions - but that is a strenght we should try to tap into. If we
can build something together that we both are satisfied with - then
surely it must cover some ground, don't you think?

I am serious and honest. I want to work with you on that.

> Is this truly a good idea?  I actually think it is a good idea that, at
> the few times we do need to agree on something as a community, that we
> take our time and work on wide agreement.

That will not change. 

> Community members, if any of you go along with this, the result will be
> massive fragmentation of what community we have left.  Already, external
> groups have left the squeak-dev-led Squeak because they do not feel
> represented.

And that is exactly one thing we intend to repair. We are contacting the
other external groups in order to connect with them. One reason for this
NOT happening before is that there haven't been anyone responsible for
doing that. Now there is. I hope you see my point.

>  Now we are seeing an effort to divide squeak-dev into
> factions: those who follow the designated list, and those who (like me)
> reject it.  If a large portion of the community does follow them, then
> an even larger portion will fork off and make NetSqueak... then
> FreeSqueak... then OpenSqueak....

How can you say this is an "effort to divide squeak-dev"? There is no
such effort going on - on the contrary. This is en effort in *uniting*
the squeak communities.

> We would end up like the Scheme community, with 100 different fiefdoms
> all mildly incompatible, and all pathetically re-inventing the same
> basic infrastructure.  That's a major waste of effort.  Let's work
> together, and let's do what we think is right -- not what a self-styled
> "leader" says we should do.
> It is not too late for us to be a loosely
> coupled comunity using a shared codebase.  We have already lost too many
> people who have decided to fork at old versions of Squeak instead of
> dealing with the current crowd.  Let's try and get some of those people
> to come back, instead of forking even further.

I have no idea how to respond to this but to say that you are seeing
something that just isn't there. If this is the way things will go
(people responding by agressively forking) then I will personally gladly
step down and leave things just like they are.

> Gentlemen on the "in" list:  Instead of spending those 6-7 days

What "in" list?

> discussing how best to make a power grab, I wish you had spent that time
> working on a concrete proposal for a proper democratic organization.  I
> have seen zero effort from you on that front.  Not one post to the
> formation mailing list has proposed concrete details of an organization.
> 100% of your visible effort has been to attain personal power over the
> Squeak community.  Please stop.  Put your energy into working out a
> truly good community, instead of in this destructive direction.

This is simply not so.

I have personally posted 18 times on that list on a whole range of
issues. Sure, mostly practical immediate issues - and not presenting a
concrete organization proposal - but that is just because I *agreed*
(and posted to that effect) on the draft presented by Steph.

Steph started the process and I feel no need to step into that, I trust
he will lead that process forward and I will do anything I can to
support it. And I am doing that. We all are.

Now, what do you want from me/us more?

> Consider carefully that you are not going to take over "Squeak" even if
> you try.  Even if it is called Squeak, you will have but a subset of the
> population that you see now.  You will be kings of a small fiefdom, and
> you will be reviled by all those who leave.  You could instead be a
> mid-level leader of a thriving community, loved by those you are
> helping.

This is just so far from honest intentions as can be. Do you really,
*really* think that bad about us? Come on.

> Is there some issue that is frustrating you guys?  What is it that you
> would like to see happening, exactly?  What do you think will not
> happen, unless you someone gain the power to command us?

I have already explained quite a lot, I can explain more but will leave
room for other voices to be heard. And my fingers ache. ;)

> Everyone:  Let us keep moving forward as I proposed before.  Let us
> thoroughly packagize Squeak, so that there are fewer central decisions
> that have to be made at all. The more we can packagize, the more becomes
> optional, and the more people can share efforts with the main group
> instead of needing to fork off separately.  This seems to be going along
> well, as far as I can see.

And that is all exactly in line with what we want to. Everyone knows
that. I assume you haven't forgotten that I started SqueakMap, that I
tried to start TFNR and that I am helping restarting that now.

> And let's proceed to *carefully* build a proper democratic organization,
> for those few times that we must make group agreements.  I expect these
> times to be few, because most action in Squeak happens in individual
> sub-projects which will have their own structure.  For those few times
> that we do need to make a decision, we should do it gently and
> carefully.  Let's take our time and build a proper organization that
> includes everyone.

That is exactly what SqF is trying to do. And we are also focused on
that task.
 
> Quite sincerely,
> 
> Lex Spoon

I really would hope you could rethink your initial reaction and read
what I am writing without reading all these bad intentions into it.

And I hope to hear from more members of this community to show me that
your views aren't the only ones. Who knows, perhaps everyone dislikes
our effort as much as you do - and then we can just stop right now.

I doubt it though.

regards, Göran

PS. That stretched out hand regarding package system (SM/universes) is
still very much stretched out. And for anyone else interested in that
too.