Hi all!

"Russell Penney" <russell.penney at tincanct.com> wrote:
> Goran,
>    I think you are being more than a little flippant and not looking at the
> issues raised. Read through your answers below and see how many of them are
> "I dont see it, so it doesn't exist" type of answers. 
> I am sorry you can't see the contradictions; I thought they were blindly
> obvious.

I read through my answers and I am sorry, no, I don't see
contradictions.
Can you be more specific? If I am contradicting myself I really want to
know.

> As for the "in" crowd, are you serious that you don't know what I am talking
> about? Just ask yourself this, if I and at least 4-5 others have mentioned
> it, maybe you should stop and think about WHY we are saying it. What is that
> we see that you dont? Your answers have been "I dont see it, so I can't
> understand why you are saying it". To blindly dismiss the concerns of others
> is not a great start.

You know, I am reading all responses and thinking hard how to respond. I
don't blindly dismiss concerns of others, and if it is my style of
communication that is making you believe so - then I am really sorry.
That is not intentional and not something I can easily change, I am who
I am.
 
> It is obvious that there are people who, if there are 2 opposing sides to a
> solution, are MUCH more successful at getting their modifications included
> into Squeak than others. Partly due to just doing it, partly because they
> are "trusted" by others who have a lot of influence, partly because they
> have been around long enough to know how to work the system. BTW none of
> these things are necessarily a bad thing, it is realistically how the world
> works, and I am just amazed that you can't see it.

No, now you explained what you mean - and I agree - some people can more
easily get their modifications into Squeak. But that is, as you say, not
necessarily a bad thing. It is inevitable.

The process can be adjusted of course, to lessen that effect. But only
so much.

I thought you meant something completely different - like some internal
"club" or "arrangement" between a group of people within our community.
AFAIK there is no such thing, but that was not what you meant.

> Not everyone is gun programmer or whiz at debugging code. That does not mean
> that "users" cannot come up with useful suggestions. However I think that
> there are more than a few "old hands" who are very dismissive of suggestions
> from anyone who has not "proved" themselves to their satisfaction. I think
> that is wasting talent that Squeak can't afford to lose. Where are the
> people who said they were happy to mentor? I realise that people are happy
> to help on this list, but that seems to be for smaller things, particular
> bugs etc not architecturally.

I agree with all you say, except for the last part. I *do* think there
are a lot of people happy to mentor. Or rather, you may be right - the
problem is finding them. But if you for example visit the IRC channel
you will get tremendous help - I am there daily and see it all the time.

And I think lots of us would like to mentor in a more continuous way
too. Mentoring... that is btw a really good idea... see below.

> I think I sent you down the wrong path with the goals or feature list. I
> dont think that is the problem per se. You write "Getting processes in
> place is one of our challenges. But given our existence we might actually
> get it done." I would have to say "might" is not good enough, if you don't I
> think you will have failed. 

Of course! But we must be aware of that we CAN fail. That was indeed
what I meant.
I really, really, REALLY don't want to fail. But we might.

> Who cares what the next release brings? (well, I know I and everyone else
> does but thats not the point :) 
> What matters is that there is a well defined process to make that decision,
> to verify that things work, to announce releases, to be able to report and
> fix bugs, to upgrade software with a reasonable chance of success, etc. Oh
> and a process to get people, who want to help, started! I think you forget
> what a daunting prospect this can be.

Hehe, no I don't forget. I don't want to sound ... condescending? (not
sure if that is the right word) but I have been in this community for a
long time. I know.
But I can't let that stop me from being a part of us four trying. :)

> Concentrate on the processes and the results will speak for themselves.

Hehe, that is actually a bit funny because I just got the exact opposite
advice from someone else - someone very influencial. :) So you see -
this is an act of balance.

> I am NOT, repeat NOT, against your approach. I think it was badly executed
> and badly written but that is water under the bridge. Go for it, I will be
> hoping that you succeed. I do reserve the right to constructively criticise
> and I think you need to pay a bit more attention to the constructive
> criticism on the list. Just you can't see something, doesn't mean it doesn't
> exist.

You know - please stop saying I don't listen. I am listening and reading
your every word, everyone that has responded. And you have the right to
criticise like everyone else. I am just counting on everyone to also
step up to the plate when the time comes to help out.

Soo....(here it comes) ;)

I liked your idea on mentoring and since you want me to listen I want to
hear more. Can you write us some concrete proposal on how we all could
get some mentoring going? How do newbies find mentors? How is the
mentoring done? How do mentors make themselves available? How do we
present such an idea to the community? etc.

I have taught OO etc to programmers and like to teach, so this is an
aspect I like. And there are lots of people into teaching in this
community. You have my ear.

regards, Göran