On 11 March 2010 04:54, keith <keith_hodges at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Trudel <ian.trudel at gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> Ian> I agree with you, Bert. It's important to keep some buzz and
>> excitement
>> Ian> but more importantly involvement of the community in any such
>> Ian> discussion. Having too much low traffic or too specific mailing lists
>> Ian> will only fragment the community's attention. Sometimes going smaller
>> is
>> Ian> making things bigger.
>>
>> In particular, I think what was missing was a call to action on the part
>> of
>> *developers* on squeak-dev, about how to use Keith's tools.
>
> Those that were interested were invited to have a tour of the bob server via
> vnc and a look around in February I think it was, and to try builds for
> themselves.
>
> The one person who tried it out liked what they saw and is the only person
> qualified to comment. That person is Ken Brown, and as Ken says if he can do
> it anyone can.
>
>>  The reasons for
>> this boggled me when I heard them -- apparently, Keith was forbidden to
>> post
>
> Not forbidden just unwise.
>
>> on the developer list because of his work arrangement.  I'm still a bit
>> flabberghasted at that... the guy creating the tools couldn't talk about
>> tools
>> in the one place that the developers who wanted to use the tools would
>> consistently be.  Certainly not a recipe for communication or leadership.
>
> Except that we had already decided that the release list was the place for
> that conversation, and this arrangement had worked for the two previous
> releases. We also had irc,  a wiki, and mantis, and allegedly a board
> liaison person.
>
> The squeak-dev conversation that I saw was predictably driven by a group of
> about 5 newbies whom I had never seen before, and as far as I know have no
> community contributions to squeak before or since, and no knowledge of any
> historical context.
>
Oh, good.. looks like we finally found who didn't allowed you to deliver: noobs!
Thanks for sharing this conclusion with us.

> These guys beat up on my 3.11 consolidating maintainance development,
> (needed as 3.x reaches the end of its life according to the board) when
> really they should have been complaining that the brand new flashy promised
> Squeak5.0 was nowhere to be seen.
>
> In my book the only people qualified to make significant direction changes
> as far as a release goes are those who have an active interest, and those
> who are making an active contribution, and those who have put their time and
> effort into actually volunteering to do stuff. Those people would be on the
> release list. The rest is noise, that would only confuse and confound.
>

So, Keith. What is the purpose of squeak-dev mailing list to your thinking?
A place for noob flame wars?
I'm interested in answer (oh .. looks like we using this list to conversate)...

> Keith
>


-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.