+1 to all of Ramon's posts in this topic.  Right on target.

Josh



Ramon Leon wrote:
>> Which was earned, by developing and demonstrating a number of projects
>> including LevelPlayingField, and then by going through protocol and
>> writing a proposal and putting it to the board, which had otherwise
>> decided to cancel any further development that wasn't spoon.
>>
>> Andreas has done none of the above, he hasn't put a proposal forward,
>> and he hasn't replaced the release team.
>>     
>
> Andreas *ran* his campaign on improving the Squeak process and got
> more votes than anyone.  That's all the authority he needs to get
> involved in changing the process.
>
>   
>> If that is the case then we are all wasting our time, I am not involved
>> in this for the sake of a pissing match. I proposed a vision, the board
>> accepted, that's it, end of.
>>     
>
> Obviously, it isn't.  Other people are free to waste their time
> however they see fit.
>
>   
>> If they change their mind then so be it, but that puts out a very
>> troubling message. (A bit late now I fear)
>>     
>
> I've seen no one deeply troubled by any of this except you.
>
>   
>> Not at all. The imposition is not on them, it is on us, that we as the
>> "squeak" mother branch, as ratified by the board, undertake to make
>> every piece of progress we develop available in a documented, and
>> packaged form, that other forks can make use of if they want to.
>>     
>
> "If you build it they will come" doesn't work if you can't find anyone
> to help you build it.
>
>   
>> Furthermore with the use of automated testing tools we will even make it
>> possible to load and test our contributions in your fork or derived
>> image for you.
>>
>> Finally releases will be assembled out of completed pieces according to
>> a specified plan, that other forks can examine and use parts of if they
>> want to.
>>
>> We will propose specific projects, delivered as externally managed and
>> publicly shared projects to move "squeak" forward but the results of
>> those developments will be deployable in all squeak forks. (e.g.
>> closures, improved HTTPClient, MC1.6, MC1.7, Logging, Rio,
>> Sake/Packages, SUnit, Morphic3.0?)
>>     
>
> Yea, so your swinging for the fence wanting the home run.  Good for
> you, but don't criticize those who are being pragmatic and going for
> the base hit that is known to work.  If you only allow contributions
> through Mantis, then you are telling most people not to contribute and
> to go away.  It seems pretty clear that most people just want to use
> Monticello and check in code.  Fit the process to the people, not the
> people to the process.  Andreas is being pragmatic.
>
>   
>> Since most of their work is not done on changing the kernel, that
>> doesn't really matter.
>>     
>
> You can't guarantee that.
>
>   
>> But it is our primary goal, to update and refactor the kernel and make
>> it as easy as possible for all forks to take advantage of the stuff we
>> offer them on a plate.
>>     
>
> We who?  I don't see an army behind you, but I have seen more positive
> response to his proposal than to yours.  Yours is so complex most
> people apparently understand what the hell it is.  That you
> continually keep having to restate your vision should tell you
> something.  You're so deep into your process that you're unable to
> compromise or understand that not everyone is trying to rid the world
> of forks.  Andreas has praised your tools many times, that's common
> ground, build on that.
>
>   
>> We are not developing, we are integrating already completed stuff.
>>     
>
> What you are not doing is listening.
>
>   
>>> Again with the presumption that you're right and he's wrong.  Give it
>>> a rest, if his idea sucks it'll fail in due course; if it has merit
>>> then it'll succeed and he'll get people contributing to Squeak.  He's
>>> not trying to solve the problems of every other fork, he's trying to
>>> make it easier to contribute to Squeak.  That might not fit in with
>>> your grand scheme, but if you can't sell him on your scheme, then so
>>> be it, let him be.  He was elected by the community to do this; he's
>>> not just some random dude trying to piss of Keith.
>>>
>>>       
>> He was not elected to do this, he was elected to a position on the board
>> whose remit is to liase and encourage, and to be consulted on vision and
>> direction.
>>     
>
> Yes, he was elected to do this, that's what got him so many votes.
>
>   
>> The board is a political body, it is not supposed to be heavy handed at
>> all. The teams that it may choose to ratify are the ones that do the work.
>>
>> If Andreas wants to be on a release team, then he should step down from
>> the board first.
>>     
>
> You cannot claim to derive authority from the board and then protest
> its authority.
>
>   
>>> Obviously, some people agree with him, respect him, and find it easier
>>> to contribute with his method.  If your process was so easy and
>>> simple, you'd have everyone doing it your way already.  Since they
>>> aren't, you have to ask yourself why?
>>>
>>>       
>> Look how many fixes are on mantis and have got scripts attached.
>>
>> That is my way
>>
>> Keith
>>     
>
> Yes, that is your way, and people are clearly unsatisfied with it and
> what they perceive to be a lack of contributions from the community.
> You say *we* an awful lot but from what I can gather *we* usually just
> means you and Matthew.  The community is bigger than the release team
> and they need an easy way to contribute *anything they want*, not just
> well tested well documented bug fixes submitted to Mantas as change
> sets.
>
> If the current process worked so well, Andreas wouldn't be trying out
> an alternative one trying to re-inspire the community.  In a sense,
> you're wanting to be in charge of the release branch and Andreas is
> trying to setup an unstable branch where contribution is easy and much
> less formal, a simple check-in with comments should suffice.  What's
> wrong with having both?
>
> Ramon Leon
> http://onsmalltalk.com
>
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20090715/99b7a429/attachment.htm