On July 6, 2009, Ken G. Brown wrote:
> See comments interspersed below.
>
> At 4:25 PM -0600 7/6/09, Ken G. Brown apparently wrote:
> >On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 15:36 -0600, Ken G. Brown wrote:
> >> I would like to present my sincere congratulations to Keith for
> >> continuing to talk sense against all odds, in presenting the Squeak
> >> community with such a well thought out way forward along with the
> >> mostly working code to implement the process.
> >>
> >> Sure, there are bound to be improvements that could be applied, and I
> >> feel that is where the SOB could have put their efforts, and not
> >> towards presenting yet another way of continuing the development
> >> processes that resulted in our current situation in the first place.
> >> In my opinion this fundamentally comes from the attitude of  'do the
> >> simplest thing that could possibly work', and not do 'the best thing
> >> in the best possible way'.
> >>
> >> And congratulations too to Igor for apparently taking the time to
> >> understand what Keith is talking about, as shown by Igor's +100
> >> comment below.
> >>
> >> I am very disappointed in the current extremely short-sighted view and
> >> direction that is being taken by the SOB.
> >>
> >> I am also extremely disappointed in the way the SOB has been treating
> >> the people involved ie Keith and Matthew mainly. Might I suggest
> >> significant improvement in the area of people skills as a high
> >> priority going forward.
> >>
> >> Thank you Keith.
> >>
> >> Ken G. Brown
> >
> >Ken,
> >
> >I appreciate you providing your point of view but I have to ask you how
> >you have actively participated in the development of 3.11.
>
> Lets be clear right at the start here, this is not about my contributions
> or lack thereof. However, I've worked with Keith's Installer and helped
> test his new developments along the way. I believe I know enough about
> software development to understand the pitfalls. I follow the Squeak lists
> and believe I know something about the history and problems. I say what I
> say after a lot thought in the hopes that my comments may help in some way
> to improve Squeak going forward.
>
> >  I ask this
> >not because I don't know the answer or don't remember (which is not to
> >say that I do) or because I'm trying to single you out but because I'm
> >trying to understand the disconnect that seems to be going on.
> >
> >You have to understand that when the SOB discussed this there was
> >absolutely no question among the seven of us that the current state of
> >the development of Squeak was untenable.
>
> You could have chosen to help bring the board approved 3.11 proposal
> forward more quickly.
>
> From:
> Squeak311Proposal that the board apparently approved:
> http://installer.pbworks.com/Squeak311Proposal
> ---
> Squeak 3.11 Deliverable
>
> Since the primary goal of 3.11 is the proving of the process. The base
> image itself will have no significant new features. ---
>
> >We have frankly been inundated
> >with complaints on one hand and near silence from contributors.  To see
> >what I mean take a glance at
> >
> > http://bugs.squeak.org/view_all_bug_page.php
> >
> >If it is not already, be sure to set the project (upper right) to
> >'Squeak').  Note that the 50 most recent issues (any change at all will
> >pop an issue to the top of this list, except of course if the issue is
> >closed which will remove it from the default view) cover a time period
> >of nearly 3 months.  Dig deeper and look at the changes in that time
> >period and the number of people participating and you find that very
> >little is going on on this side of things.  And yet this is the only way
> >to submit a change under Keith's proposal.
>
> I'm not sure that comment is correct, at least not in my understanding.
> Anyway, Keith's work would certainly benefit from further community
> contributions, it is obviously at an early stage.
>
> > Of course you could also be
> >directly working on Installer/Bob/MC but as far as I can tell the
> >community involved there is similarly small.
> >
> >Can I take it that your preference now would be for us to completely
> >retract the changes proposed by Andreas and go back to the way things
> >were say 10 days ago?
>
> That might be a very good and very positive step forward indeed.
> In my opinion that would begin the community healing process and start to
> restore some confidence, in my mind at least, in the way the SOB works.
> Start over on the right foot, involving discussions with the release team
> and come up with a more preferable way forward. So far in this case, things
> have been far too dictatorial for my liking.

Well, other's opinion may be different - I see a lot of discussion on this 
topic here :) . From my perspective,  a majority elected the board, I expect 
the board top make decisions, without asking the community to effectively vote 
on every step. The board made a decision, and I hope they will move forward 
rather than turn back...

Milan

>
> Ken G. Brown
>
> >Ken
> >-------------- next part --------------