The crux of the problem that the Terms of Reference discussion has been initiated to solve, in my opinion is:

1. The release team had previously clearly outlined the path forward and this path was apparently approved by the board:
Refer to:
<http://installer.pbworks.com/SqueakReleaseTeam>
<http://installer.pbworks.com/Squeak311>
<http://installer.pbworks.com/Squeak311Proposal>
<http://installer.pbworks.com/Squeak311Proposal>

2. Somebody in their great wisdom got excited at a certain point that there had been no release for some time, even tho it had been clearly documented and approved that 3.11 was not about a release per se, but mostly about improving the tools and process. Then the board dictatorially instituted the new development model, saying deceptively that the new  development model was just an experiment. There was no discussion with the current release team, there was no attempt made to help understand and improve the existing tools and process, there was no attempt made to work with the release team going forward. And there was no attempt made to bring the desires of the board to the release team in order to improve any perceived shortfall of the release team. The board's thoughtless actions resulted in the total sidelining and destruction of the previous significant progress made towards improving tools and process for the benefit of all of the Squeak community, work done mainly by Keith.

In my mind, the actions by the board were in this case totally unacceptable and there is a great need to institute some binding rules (Terms of Reference) to ensure this sort of thing never happens again.

There still is no clearly communicated vision of the path forward via the new development model.

How will this new development model be merged and integrated with the previously clearly communicated and board approved release path?
How does the new development model benefit the Squeak community as a whole, including the various forks?
How does the new development model improve the methodology for maintaining external packages such as Monticello?
How the the new development model improve the methodology for modularizing and removing sections of code that can preferentially be maintained as externally loadable and unloadable packages?

Ken G. Brown

At 11:13 AM -0600 11/5/09, Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez apparently wrote:
>I don't want to start a flame but so will end. Anyway...
>
>>From some weeks to date I have been wondering what is the point of so
>many little and not so little random fixes going to trunk (not
>minimizing the effort or quality of them, that they indeed have).
>I have entered the Squeak page and nowhere could I find a single
>sentence about the goals that motivated so may changes.
>
>Are they trying to fix Monticello (fix what)?
>Are they trying to fix input (unicode, japanese, russian, what?)?
>Are they trying to fix collections (were they broken?)?
>Are they trying to get some social results by experimenting with the
>number of automated mails about said fixes and reactions of people?
>
>This are some of the headers of the 524 (in my inbox) mails sent
>automatically for each single commit to the squeak trunk.
>
>[squeak-dev] The Trunk: Tools-bf.106.mcz [aug 20, 2009]
>[squeak-dev] The Trunk: MonticelloConfigurations-edc.60.mcz [aug 21,
>2009]
>[squeak-dev] The Trunk: MonticelloConfigurations-ar.61.mcz [aug 21,
>2009]
>...
>[squeak-dev] The Trunk: Monticello-ul.331.mcz [oct 05, 2009]
>
>Some could say that they show that are a lot of work (because are a lot
>of commits) but you could also say that they are part of just two or
>three single goals (e.g Fixing monticello and fixing collections)
>although with each single goal implemented as 200 commits, all part of
>the same overall change. That way it doesn't look as much work being
>done.
>
>I tried to look in the squeak page for a list of goals or milestones
>that the individual commits are trying to fix and couldn't find any. So
>I can't get the overall picture. The squeak list is full of commits
>mails that for a new user say nothing. On the other side, the page is
>the same old outdated page with no hints about where the squeak is going
>on.
>
>What is a new user to learn about this? Or to expect about squeak in a
>give timeframe?
>
>Then is the issue of the blog vs. list discussions. Igor, has posted a
>terms of reference request for discussion in the blog, not in the list.
>This touch a point that Keith put in the table four or five months ago
>and nobody wanted to discuss in the moment? Has something changed now
>that the topic is worth discussing? The meat of the discussion is the
>role of the board. And that is something that I can't understand because
>four months ago the de facto solution was to give the board time to
>organize and later, they promised, they will show the road to follow.
>But I don't see that today. Today we are in the same point that before,
>without established responsibilities/limits and without a published road
>for squeak. Too bad.
>
>The squeak oversigth blog list the agendas for each meeting:
>
>11/18/2009
>Free server hosting options
>Terms of Reference
>Packaging/Distribution of Contributed Packages with Release
>SFC/Relicensing
>Promotion and Visibility of Squeak
>Development Progress
>Squeak Swiki Improvement
>Comment with any suggestions.
>
>11/4/2009
>Terms of Reference
>Free Server Hosting Options
>SFC/Relicensing
>Promotion and Visibility of Squeak
>Development Progress
>Squeak Swiki Improvement
>
>10/21/2009
>Should we be paying attention to something?  Let us knowŠ
>Community Server/Services Hosting
>SFC/Relicensing
>Promotion and Visibility of Squeak
>Development Progress
>The technical responsibilities of the Board
>Squeak Swiki Improvement
>
>10/7/2009
>SFC/Relicensing
>Promotion and Visibility of Squeak - OOPSLA, ECOOP?
>Internal Processes
>Development Progress
>The technical responsibilities of the Board
>Squeak Swiki Improvement
>
>9/16/2009
>SFC/Relicensing
>Promotion and Visibility of Squeak
>Internal Processes
>Development Progress
>The technical responsibilities of the Board
>Squeak Swiki Improvement
>
>9/2/2009
>Internal Processes
>Development Progress
>Relicensing Progress
>The technical responsibilities of the Board
>Squeak Swiki Improvement
>
>8/19/2009
>Suggestions are appreciated.
>Development Progress
>Relicensing Progress
>The technical responsibilities of the Board
>
>8/5/2009
>Development Progress
>Relicensing Progress
>The technical responsibilities of the Board
>Squeak Swiki upgrade/replacement
>
>7/15/2009
>Development Model Progress
>Relicensing Release Progress
>
>7/1/2009
>3.11 Status
>4.0/Relicensing Status
>Squeak Swiki update or replacement
>Teams
>
>5/7/2009
>Project Updates
>Licensing Status
>Mission Statement
>Teams Updates
>Process improvements
>
>4/17/2009
>Project Updates
>Seconds (aka backups)
>Licensing Release
>Mission Statement
>Teams
>Positioning towards other communities
>Process improvements (BPPs, decision making etc)
>
>And so and so...
>
>Do you see the trend?
>Discussions and discussions from at least april 2009 and nothing that a
>external unknowing user could say about the future of squeak.
>
>Summary, squeak has no direction and we are not better now than 6 months
>ago.
>
>So finally, the question?
>
>Where is Squeak going?
>
>As said, I don't want a flame but it is really disappointing to see this
>community getting lost in the color of the bikeshed.
>
>http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/misc.html#BIKESHED-PAINTING
>
>Board, do one thing: Make decisions not discussions.
>
>Put a list of goals move the boat that way.
>
>Cheers
>
>--
>Miguel Cobá
>http://miguel.leugim.com.mx