Hi Stef,

I would love you have you answer my questions, and all the questions that
appear on the wiki site.  The issue that Craig raised wondered if my
questions had some sort of implied Ron's agenda attached to them.  If you
feel that my questions have some sort of agenda please feel free as Craig
did to point that out in your answer.  

I really think it would have been better to have created an article for
weeklySqueak since we are getting 500-1000 readers a day which is larger
then our community.  I thought it would be good press for us so I threw what
I thought were softball questions which I guess were miss-interpreted. 

I certainly understand Craig's point of view considering our private
disagreements about the board, but I didn't intend any agenda, nor did I
have ulterior motives.  I accept the responsibility for the
miss-understanding and apologize if my comments and questions were taken
that way.

I have pretty thick skin, and I know you do too, even if your comments don't
always show that.  Giving that I know you can take some criticism I would
like to add an additional question for you to answer.

Your comments on the wiki site say that if things are not better based on
the first meeting after the election you will resign again.  My question to
you is do you feel that is fair to the board to leave it with only 6 members
because you do not agree with the other board members?  Can you find a way
to stay and work out your differences instead?

Thanks Stef!

Ron Teitelbaum
Squeak Community Member



> From: stephane ducasse
> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 3:51 PM
> 
> Sorry I was terribly busy with my house.
> Now should each candidates reply to the questions of ron following
> what craig just did?
> I'm confused I thought that we should not but Craig seems to reply to
> all the questions.
> 
> Stef
> 
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
>