Ian Trudel wrote:
> 2009/8/14 Keith Hodges <keith_hodges at yahoo.co.uk>:
>
>   
>> The real problem in moving squeak forward is a people problem.
>>     
>
> You sure got that one right. It's perfectly fine that you are
> interested into more planning, documentation, etc. Provided that
> people get to do the work.
>  And right now we've seen more and more
> people interested in the trunk, or "trunk", 
This is due to one reason only.

The information about the idea of trunk was published on squeak-dev by
Andreas. We were working on release at squeakfoundation.org because
previous release teams have had very much similar problems with the
lions den that is squeak-dev (remember 3.9 and subsequent fallout anyone)

Bob built a closures image in February - Andreas could have recruited
people to look at it and work on the closures initiative then.
Mantis fix loading automation was finished a number of months ago,
Andreas could have recruited people to work on that process.
He could have equally well discussed Bob on squeak-dev and recruited
people to work on relevant stuff for that process.

I had proposed a couple of projects that needed working on. The release
team should not have to participate in squeak-dev at all, it is well
known for chewing people up - ask Marcus Denker.
> and we get immediate
> reports on the mailing list.
I asked explicitly not to discuss release team issues on squeak-dev this
whole process has been one of extreme discourtesy by all concerned.
>  There is a buzz about the "trunk" and
> it's refreshing. It's really good to see more activity.
>   
There was loads of activity already occurring.
> Whether you like it or not, 3.11 process is not exactly an instant
> hit. And it's unlikely to be readjusted considering that you are
> overlooking the human and social aspects of Squeak.
>   
What would those be?
> You are trying to tell us that Andreas is evil and entrapped us into
> some twisted process, then you have announced that Bob is closed
> source (and unlikely to be otherwise). Are we completely doom or
> something?
>   
Yes.

The board needs to establish a protocol which goes some way to protect
volunteers which it (allegedly) supports. I have lost income due to the
boards actions.

Keith