Thanks for your answers Craig.

I think you may have read my intentions wrong concerning the incorporation.
While compiling this list I went over the issues that were asked by the
community.  Most of the issues that seemed to be very important were
licensing, funding (and corporate sponsorship, or engaging more businesses),
incorporation, and most of all bounty projects.  The rest are things that
I'm interested in: the future of Smalltalk and how we can improve the
community.  The conference question has been coming up recently in different
lists and I think the community agrees that we should be raising money and
one of the major things we could be doing is sponsoring people to attend
conference and represent Squeak.  I'd be interested if the board agrees with
that.  I didn't think it would be appropriate to ask questions about current
development and things that are still being debated so I left those
questions out.

During the last election the major issue was, if we are going to incorporate
why haven't we?  I put that question in there as a softball to give you and
others a chance to say what is going on or voice their support for this
important issue.  I am not against incorporation.

The email you are talking about was some current advice and some ancient
history that I gave to Bert.  He asked me if he could forward my advice to
you.  I thought I was pretty clear what my issues are and if the board would
like to continue with the conversations and advice I was giving it before
the current board was elected and eliminated my participation I will be
happy to help where I can.  I suppose you did me a favor since I was
spending too much time on it anyway.  My goals are pretty simple; I'm trying
to help the community where I can.  I believe it would be good for the
community for the next board to be more open, ask for and accept more help.

I appreciate your talent and contributions to the community.  You did a very
nice job organizing board and finally getting things moving.

Thanks again for answering the questions,

Ron Teitelbaum

> From: Craig Latta
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 8:15 PM
> 
> 
> Hi Ron--
> 
> > Do you support stepping up fundraising? If so, what do you propose to
> > do with the money collected?
> 
>      It seems to me that there is a very strong consensus in the
> community in support of increased fundraising; I support it as well. In
> fact, this consensus is so strong that the first part of the question
> strikes me as very odd. Clearly (to me), the tricky part, and where
> there *is* disagreement, is about creating an appropriate legal entity
> to receive and disburse the funds.
> 
>      If we had funding, I would suggest we spend it on keeping the
> community's online facilities running (hosting bills, etc.). If we can
> devise a fair and productive way to fund development, I would support
> that as well.
> 
> > Do you support bounty projects? If so, can you lay out how you would
> > like to see a bounty program administered?
> 
>      As I said above, I support funding development in a fair and
> productive way. The typical "bounty" seems to consist of a vague
> statement of the desired result and a rather arbitrary financial reward.
> I think doing something like this in the Squeak community would almost
> certainly lead to bitterness, because it would be a race where every
> loser would invest far more effort than is reasonable. I think it would
> create unconstructive competition. It would turn developers into
> footrace contestants working in secret, each hoping to beat the others.
> There would be significant pressure to claim to be first, rather than
> doing the job properly; and I suspect there would be a great deal of
> arguing over whether the goal was actually met, and the people arguing
> would have a financial interest in the outcome. Not good!
> 
>      For each desired result, I would much rather see the appropriate
> community team solicit and refine bids from interested developers, in
> public, and choose one. With a dialog between bidders and the rest of
> the community, I think we'd be more likely to define the goal with
> sufficient detail, and choose appropriate rewards. I expect that a bid
> could be rescinded if work went over schedule, etc.
> 
>      Of course, for any of this to be possible, we need to have a budget
> which is both sufficiently large and *sustainable*.
> 
> > Do you support incorporation and not for profit tax status for Squeak
> > Foundation?
> 
>      This question strikes me as especially loaded. The Squeak
> Foundation board of directors has already been working toward this for
> months, as you can read in the board meeting notes. Isn't it a bit late
> to be asking this question? Why didn't you take issue with our approach
> when we mentioned it in the meeting notes? The main signal I get from
> this question is that you oppose incorporation as a distinct tax-exempt
> organization, and that you're somehow trying to draw support for that
> point of view. Not long after you initially posted these questions, my
> suspicion was proved correct by a subsequent message you sent to the
> board (which I leave to you to repeat in public if you wish).
> 
>      At best, I think you have a conflict of interest on this issue
> (between speaking for the community in asking campaign questions and
> having your own agenda on this issue).
> 
> > What do you believe is the future of Smalltalk?
> 
>      I think the future of Smalltalk is one in which it is seen as the
> easiest way to teach the expression of intent with a computer, and the
> most productive way to build meaningful systems. So far I think
> Smalltalk has done rather well on the second part, but very poorly on
> the first.
> 
> > What do you think the community is doing right, what should be
> > improved?
> 
>      The community has started to delegate tasks to the right interested
> people, which is great. The way we communicate, though, isn't terribly
> effective. I think it'd help if we devoted more effort to real-time
> communication (e.g., via the Squeak IRC channel, Skype, and in-person
> conferences).
> 
> > Should the Squeak be represented at more conferences?
> 
>      Of course it should. I can't imagine why anyone would answer "no"
> to this question, so it seems very odd. There are, however, reasons why
> we might not able to accomplish it, such as a lack of funds or available
> time. I hope no one will confuse a lack of resources with a lack of
> desire.
> 
> > Should Tim be given a gazillon dollars for his excellent work on
> > Squeak?
> 
>      We should all have a gazillion dollars for our excellent work on
> Squeak.
> 
> > They are not arbitrary questions or one sided Ron's agenda questions.
> 
>      I hope I made myself clear about that in my answers.
> 
> > I thought they were pretty well sanitized and general.  Some of them
> > are downright softballs!
> 
>      Whether or not they're softballs is beside the point. Some of the
> questions were *leading*, not necessarily aggressive. I think tough
> questions are fine.
> 
>      Well, judging by the inevitable email storm around questioning, it
> seems to me that to remain above reproach a candidate must answer any
> and all questions asked by anyone everywhere (lest a flashing red "DID
> NOT RESPOND" descend from the skies :). I'll certainly try to answer any
> question I see, as my available time allows. But you'll pardon me if I
> answer the questions I see between the lines as well. :)
> 
>      Finally, thanks for your work on the elections team, Ron (and
> thanks to Daniel and the rest of the team). While I disagree with some
> of your ideas about how to conduct an election, I do appreciate your work.
> 
> 
>      thanks again,
> 
> -C
> 
> --
> Craig Latta
> http://netjam.org/resume
> 
>