[squeak-dev] Craig's answers to the 2008 candidate questions
Craig Latta
craig at netjam.org
Tue Feb 26 04:46:36 UTC 2008
Hi all--
> 1. Approximately, how much time do you plan on spending on Squeak
> during the coming year (in any kind of unit)?
I plan to spend Mondays on Squeak for the indefinite future (I was
able to start doing this in mid-February 2008). A year of weekly
eight-hour days is about 400 hours, or about ten full-time weeks. The
work I do for my primary client the rest of each week is also with
Squeak, so there may be some overlap there.
> 2. What are in your mind the three most important issues (not
> necessarily technical) we need to address in the coming year?
- Producing a release composed entirely of appropriately-licensed
material (this will enable our membership in the Software Freedom
Conservancy, and in turn the ability to receive tax-exempt
donations, which could fund a great deal of important effort).
- Improving the modularity of our system.
- Spreading the word about Squeak in the media and at conferences.
> 3. What is your view on fund raising and how any such collected money
> should be dealt with?
I think we should be receiving tax-exempt donations (see previous
answer). The elected leadership should decide how to spend all such
money, reporting all expenditures to the community and delegating
spending decisions as it sees fit (e.g., it may decide to allocate some
money to a team with its own reported budget).
> 4. What is your view on the ongoing process of making SqueakFoundation
> a not-for-profit legal entity?
What the leadership elected in 2007 is attempting is membership
for the Squeak project in the Software Freedom Conservancy. The
Conservancy will be the legal entity, but the Squeak project will gain
many of the benefits of that status (please see the Conservancy's
website[1] for details).
I think being able to receive tax-exempt donations is vital to our
goals as a community. With it we can pursue development, documentation,
and advocacy far more effectively. Conservancy membership remains our
best option for being able to receive tax-exempt donations.
There is a stark tradeoff here between waiting and spending money.
Joining the Conservancy is taking so long because our membership is
contingent upon a Squeak release composed only of appropriately-licensed
content. This requires obtaining license agreements from many
contributors. While establishing an independent entity might lessen that
burden, it would require personal investments of time and money that we
are not willing to make.
> 5. Do you think the Team model is appropriate for organising our
> efforts or should we come up with something else?
I do think the team model is appropriate. It's simple and clear,
and works to the extent that the participants have time to spend. No
rearrangement of policy is going to create free time for anyone (sadly
:). If we're not meeting our goals for a role, then people who think
they can do a better job need to volunteer. I think that's simply the
nature of volunteer work.
> 6. Do you have any specific views on how the Squeak board and the
> Squeak community should work together with the Squeak satellite
> communities (Croquet, Seaside, Sophie, Squeakland, Scratch etc), also
> referred to as "stakeholder communities"?
These groups should communicate their desires and constraints to
each other early and often.
> 7. The squeak.org release is our most important asset. How do you see
> it evolving over the next few years?
The release is our most important artifact, but the community
itself is our most important asset. At any rate, I see the release
moving to a clearly minimal kernel with a system for extension while
maintaining modularity. I see the behavior we're using now organized
into intelligible modules, and flexibly loadable from local or remote
peers. I see a system which a newcomer can start exploring and reusing
immediately, experiencing competency in a day.
> 8. Do you have any thoughts on the current relicensing effort?
It is well worth finishing, and I'll be very glad when it's done.
> 9. How would you like Squeak to be positioned in the open source world
> in year 2012?
I'll be very happy if the open-source world sees Squeak as a
familiar, reasonable alternative for software projects of any size.
> 10. What do you see as the overall role of the board?
The Squeak leadership should represent the project to the
Conservancy, act as the authoritative decision-making body for the
community, and delegate responsibility to capable and motivated
participants who can commit the necessary time.
thanks!
-C
[1] http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org
--
Craig Latta
improvisational musical informaticist
www.netjam.org
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|