Well, it is a tough thing.  I would personally like to know about where the 
candidates stand on things I want to see happen and things I don't want to 
see happen.  But I don't know how to word my questions in an unloaded way. 
:)

I would just want to know things like, how much change does the candidate 
want or would support?  Something drastic changes (and imo awful) like 
moving to a more file based, less image architecture, or a more conservative 
(but forward moving!) approach.

>From: "Ron Teitelbaum" <Ron at USMedRec.com>
>Reply-To: Ron at USMedRec.com, The general-purpose Squeak developers 
>list<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>To: "'tim Rowledge'" <tim at rowledge.org>,"'The general-purpose Squeak 
>developers list'"<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>Subject: RE: election details *PLEASE READ*
>Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:08:01 -0500
>
>All,
>
>As a reminder these were the questions that I originally suggested.  I did
>receive other questions that I was planning on incorporating today.
>
>1) Do you support stepping up fundraising?  If so what do you propose to do
>with the money collected?
>
>2) Do you support bounty projects?  If so can you lay out how you would 
>like
>to see a bounty program administered?
>
>3) Do you support incorporation and not for profit tax status for Squeak
>Foundation?
>
>4) What do you believe is the future of Smalltalk?
>
>5) What do you think the community is doing right, what should be improved?
>
>6) Should the Squeak be represented at more conferences?
>
>7) Should Tim be given a gazillon dollars for his excellent work on Squeak?
>
>They are not arbitrary questions or one sided Ron's agenda questions.  I
>thought they were pretty well sanitized and general.  Some of them are
>downright softballs!
>
>Ron
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: tim Rowledge [mailto:tim at rowledge.org]
> > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 1:58 PM
> > To: Ron at USMedRec.com; The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> > Subject: Re: election details *PLEASE READ*
> >
> >
> > On 19-Feb-07, at 10:32 AM, Ron Teitelbaum wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Craig suggests that we do not post an article that has candidates
> > > answer my
> > > questions because my questions are loaded.
> >
> > I pretty much agree with Craig here; no bad intent is needed by
> > anyone in the process and yet it can very easily become a nasty
> > argument.  It seems to be the nature of email/group communications.
> > Survey questions (and what Ron was suggesting is essentially a
> > survey) are very difficult to write in such a way as to *elicit
> > opinions* rather than *agreement with implied opinion in the question*.
> >
> > 1) Have you stopped beating your spouse yet?
> > 2) Do you agree that we must always fight against stopping <foo>
> > being prevented, if indeed it not happening caused nothing to not be
> > undoably redone?
> > 3) Why? Explain in 750 words, double spaced on unlined paper. In
> > green crayon.
> >
> >
> > tim
> > --
> > tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
> > Klingon Code Warrior:- 7) "You question the worthiness of my Code?! I
> > should kill you where you stand!"
> >
> >
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Find what you need at prices you’ll love. Compare products and save at MSN® 
Shopping. 
http://shopping.msn.com/default/shp/?ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=24102&tcode=T001MSN20A0701