I do not have the skills or intelligence to be dev. But, I do know how to
read and I read the thoughts posted on the list in the hope that I learn
something. I would be one of the *silent* although I have no idea whether
that group is the *majority*. When *contention* produces real *content*, I
am thankful. When not, well, it's on to the next post for me.

cheers,

ching

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 2:10 AM, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:

> Just to clarify, I am not against survey-style polling; in fact I am
> greatly interested in counting.  However, the way this was presented,
> as a "resolution of contentious issues," while at the same time,
> itself, being contentious with divisive, comparative language; that
> approach will not be effective to garner my support.
>
> I would only participate if I were sure the poll would not serve as a
> wedge to divide our community / communities.
>
> However, maybe not, because perhaps the emergent phenomena of "no
> consensus" should be viewed _as_ a consensus; that the proposal could
> not pass muster with enough of the bright minds here for action to be
> warranted and, therefore, the choice not do do it was and is the
> correct one.
>
Well said, Chris.
++1


>
>  - Chris
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Casey,
> >
> >> I've seen a few rounds of discussion around contentious issues.
> Namespaces
> >> are a fantastic example. Some of these issues, (I'll call them
> Oddballs,)
> >> just don't like getting resolved. The pattern is that almost everyone
> who
> >> speaks out has a different idea about how to #doIt. The conversation
> usually
> >> goes in a long circle, and then gets garbage collected when everyone
> gets
> >> too fatigued with the debate to continue it.
> >
> > Vigorous debate is not only normal, but essential, for a successful
> > software development community.
> >
> >> I often wonder what the silent majority think about Oddball issues. We
> >
> > Did the "silent majority" have a silent vote, and that's how you know
> > they were the "majority" of something?
> >
> >> I'm thinking of this in part after a conversation that happened at the
> first
> >> SSUG meeting. We talked about how we tend to argue in circles in
> squeak-dev,
> >
> > We "tend to argue in circles" in squeak-dev.  That's ridiculous.
> >
> >> while the Pharo folk set up a "working group" to make decisions about
> stuff
> >
> > They do?  I searched the Pharo list for "working group" but did not
> > find any announcements.  Can you tell us more?  Who are they, what did
> > they work on, and what was the final "solution"?
> >
> > As for Squeak, squeak-dev _is_ the working group.
> >
> >> like this, and then as a result get to make progress, even on issues
> which
> >
> > "Progress?"  That's a very subjective term..
> >
> >> are contentious in their community. I don't know if we actually need or
> want
> >> a "working group," whatever that is, but it would be nice to _have a
> pulse
> >> on the desires of the broader Squeak community._
> >
> > I would say, if the pulse isn't clear, this is the place to find it.
> > You can poll here, our community is small enough to be able to do that
> > by just reading the responses of the folks who care enough to voice
> > their opinion.  The "silent majority" has no voice other than their
> > code, which must be good enough to lure our community into change.
> >
> >> two problems a) contention, and b) no workable implementation, it would
> be
> >> nice to get some of the contention out of the way so that I can quit
> arguing
> >> on a mailing list and #doIt.
> >
> > I think you know, there's plenty to work on that requires no arguing.  :)
> >
> >  - Chris
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20110510/933ccf5a/attachment.htm