Lex
  I think that you totally miss the point. I did not read your email 
totally.
But we need people organising squeak. Sorry but the harvesting process
does not work well. So we should give them a chance.

Stef

On 15 févr. 05, at 23:15, Lex Spoon 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.
>
> If there is a Squeak reorganization, we should hear about it from 
> Squeak
> Central itself.  That has not happened.
>
> 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.
>
> The proposed "in" list is not representative.  Where are the educators
> and education researchers?  They are Squeak's raison d'etre.  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.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> And what is the point of this power grab, anyway?  There is no 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.
>
> 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.
> 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.
>
>
> 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.  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....
>
> 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.
>
>
> Gentlemen on the "in" list:  Instead of spending those 6-7 days
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> 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 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.
>
>
>
> Quite sincerely,
>
> Lex Spoon
>