On 18 February 2010 07:26, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
>>
>> On 2/17/10 6:06 AM, "Andreas Raab" <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> The idea is to combine both the free-for-all
>>> easy access trunk development with managed bug fixing for released
>>> versions. I'm all in favor of the latter (just as long as it doesn't
>>> prevent the former). And obviously, this model can be applied
>>> retroactively to produce 3.10.3.
>>
>> -1
>>
>> We should go forward and no backwards.
>
> I agree with the general inclination of moving forwards, however, providing
> fixes is generally a Good Thing (tm), just very resource intensive. We don't
> have many resources, so we have to be careful how we split our energy
> between moving forwards and supporting existing releases.
>
> What I've been trying to describe is a process that I think we can actually
> sustain with the resources we have. That's because we do it reasonably often
> (every 6 months), reasonably quickly (2 weeks) and hopefully automated to
> some extent. Spending two weeks every six months to look through Mantis to
> see what fixes might help an existing release is time well spent for people
> using a Squeak release for their own work.
>
>> Start to talk about 3.10.3 only for Keith do not complains is no good.
>
> Mentioning 3.10.3 was intended as a test bed for the process. Kinda like
> saying, okay let's just go over Mantis, select fixes that are important,
> package them, ship them as 3.10.3. Since we need to start the process
> somewhere we might as well start it with 3.10. It would teach us something
> about the process.
>
>> But I wish a proper close of 3.10.2 and a freeze of 3.11.
>
> Yes, we talked about it in the board meeting today and I've been tasked to
> write something up about it.
>
>> I want you as Squeak CEO and have my vote.
>
> To be clear, I don't want to be a CEO. I'm not sure if you know what that
> *actually* implies; I've done the job, I completely hated everything to do
> with it. I'm an engineer, a system-builder, not a CEO.
>
> The board itself is truly a board of equals, great and wonderful
> personalities who I am proud to associate with. There is only one person who
> I'd say does significantly more than anyone else, and that's Ken. Ken has
> been by far the biggest surprise to me - he is truly the secretary, keeping
> everything together, making sure we have an agenda, making sure we post the
> summary, nagging people where necessary, keeping the communications going,
> etc.
>
> That Ken isn't running again is a *huge* loss for the next board, much
> larger than my absence could ever be. If you have any influence on his
> decisions (heck even if not!) send him a note to reconsider, *beg* him if
> you must. And I apologize to Ken for putting you on the stand here but I
> really, really, really like you to reconsider :-)
>

+100. Ken is truly the heart of current board. His conrtibution is
hard to underestimate.


> Cheers,
>  - Andreas


-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.