> To all Keith Hodges of Earth,
>   

They woudn't all be interested.
> Would you be so kind to trash Andreas in private?
I am pointing out that this way of working is not what we need. Andreas
is not going to listen to me in private or in public. This process is
locking the future direction of squeak in to the decisions that Andreas
is making now.

This requires words that people understand, and so I used them.
>  Stop wasting our
> valuable time with your ever lasting bitter comments. 
Like I said no bitter comments here, that's your assumption.
> The community is
> focusing on you rather than meaningful discussions. For example, Ramon
> spent quality time replying to your message rather than, let's say,
> commenting on my idea about a migration tool. I am spending the time
> to write this letter. A real waste of time. The spot light is on you
> and in a very negative way. Isn't it what a "prima donna" is?
>   
The prima donna is the one making all the decisions, without any concern
for the opinions of anyone else.
> Please, I mean no disrespect to your efforts. You have resurrected
> Squeak 3.11 and done a phenomenal work. There are many of your ideas
> that have their technical merits. You are probably 100 times better
> with Squeak than I will ever be and you have contributed much more
> than I might ever contribute.
>
> Perhaps Keith Hodges is the Atlas of Squeak. You have put way too much
> pressure on your shoulders, my friend. Then you eventually have
> frustrations because you might not always get the recognition you
> ought for. Reading through your emails, opinions and solutions make me
> feel that you actually enjoy being one of the main articulation of the
> future of Squeak and it is a private club with only one member. 
It's not a private club, however if you want to make a release team of
your own, do put your proposal to the board, like everyone else has to.
(except Andreas of course, who has imo abused his position on the board)
> You
> really enjoy throwing at people "You contributed nothing!". Or "Fork
> off!@#".
>   
Not at all. It is my concern that contributions to trunk, for example,
are wasted by default. How does a fix added to trunk help the cobalt
fork? How does it help my production images? etc etc.
> My business experience made it clear to me that a project is not
> successful on his technical merits alone. The projects with the most
> interesting technical aspects tend to fail while others focusing on
> other aspects tend to do rather well, still according to my
> experience. Technical people should be part of the decisional process
> but I would not agree they would be the sole to decide. That would be
> a recipe for disaster.
>
> Whether you like it or not, the turn of events is doing good to the
> community, even *I* contributed (very modestly compared to you but
> still) to Squeak because it's bloody easy. It's an act of
> unselfishness since I still cannot and might never be able to use
> Squeak on a professional front.
>   
So is uploading a change set to mantis. That is easy too, and that
process has been in place for some years.
> Remember, there are CCTV cameras everywhere in UK. We watch you Keith. :P
>
> Your attitude stinks. Really.
>   
How does it stink? What is wrong with pointing out the way a process is?

You are band new to this list, I haven't seen you before last week, with
respect I dont think you know anything of the difficulties of delivering
and maintaining a project using squeak.

Andreas forked squeak years ago, he has his own fork, croquet/qwaq. If
he was so clever he would have been able to keep his fork up to date
with changes in 3.9 and 3.10, but it didn't work qwaq, like most forks
is still based upon 3.8.

Why didnt it work? Simply because the release team at the time went off
on their own prima-donna direction and as a result for better or worse
we got traits added tot he image. This is exactly the same set up. The
release team for 3.9 didnt make the knowledge that they put in to 3.9
available in a form that was useful to exisiting 3.8 forks. They
purposefully left everyone in the dust.

This is a hard problem, a very hard problem, and its not one that one
person, even one of Andreas' technical calibre can fix, by only
technical means. Instituting a fork, controlling it, and recruiting
people to work on it, based purely on driving forward a technical vision
has been done before, it's called Pharo.

So given a vote between Andreas' approach and simply using Pharo as the
future of squeak you might as well pick Pharo, because philosophically I
can't see anything to choose between them.

Keith




> Ian.
>