>> That's good to know.  My understanding from yesterday was we were only
>> going to pierce SqueakSSL for now.  So when I saw Ron dole'ing out access
>> blanket-wholesale to folks who hadn't even requested it, it was disturbing.
>
> While I appreciate the apology I would still like to clarify.  I have made no changes and I have given access to nobody.

The #1 thing that got my goat about what you're doing with SqueakSSL
is that I felt you were dissing a digital boundary for no good reason
-- since it wasn't strictly necessary to keep Andreas' projects alive.

Then this morning I saw you escalating that behavior even more by
actively recruiting "admin" maintainers for projects that no one has
even expressed a need to maintain yet.

To do that even before there's an active need to do it -- I can't tell
you how this level of disregard for digital boundaries makes me feel,
and from a guy who understands digital security but maybe not the
consequences of such lax social attitudes about it.

> I simply did a review of what I thought should be done.  It had very clear summaries and detailed notes of each repository along with explanations.    I have no problem with you objecting to anything I've asked the community to discuss.  We do need to decide what to do with the three extra projects.  I recommended that Bert, if he wanted, to be added to repositories that he knows the most about.  It makes no sense for me to be an admin on Monticello projects.  Anything I would do I would ask Bert first!  I have no idea what to do with NanoTraits, so I'm asking the community for help with that.  (I'm hoping that Igor or Daniel raise their hands).  The others I didn't ask for a change at all because there were already people in the admin role that could handle the projects.

I wish I could have convinced Dave to make squeaksource.com 100%
read-only when we took it over.  Then we wouldn't need to discuss
anything, and Andreas' project descendants would live-on simply by
natural selection by those with a vested interest in them.

> While I appreciate your goals are to protect the community I would ask you to read more carefully and state things in factual terms.

Pretty easy for me to miss you on that "ar" project given the context
of what you're doing and your confusing e-mail.  I already apologized
about it, but everything else I've said has been factual, TMK.

> I too have the goal to protect to community.  Starting from a position of trust would be a great benefit to everyone.  Just so you understand, Nobody, and I mean Nobody touches Andreas' Chess code!  (I suggested a fix once and got an earful from Andreas about it :)

I did start from a position of trust.  Then there was the switch-a-roo
to all these other projects.  I already thought what we were doing was
heavy-handed, I was blown away by the new aggressiveness!

Since then Bert said you guys have "explicit permission" to do all
this, which helps, but I still think there are better ways to keep
Andreas' projects alive than doing this.

I feel like I'm repeating now, so I'm officially done talking about
it.  We all agree about keeping Andreas' memory and projects alive,
just disagree about how.  You knew him best, if anyone should do this,
it should be you.