Discussion:
More Candidate Questions
(too old to reply)
Ken G. Brown
2012-01-28 12:33:08 UTC
Permalink
At <http://www.squeak.org/Foundation/> it says the Squeak Oversight Board is "building a legal presence".

Another apparently official SOB site site <http://squeakboard.wordpress.com/our-mission/>
mentions as one of the goals of the SOB is "a solid legal foundation"

I would like to ask the candidates:
Do you intend to continue with these previous commitments?
If so, what do you intend to put in place in order to build a legal presence?
If not, do you intend to change the SOB www presence goals as stated?

Ken G. Brown
Thanks G?ran.
Since this is the campaigning period I'd like to invite people to ask questions. Most of the candidates have made statements about their interests and directions, so I feel the floor should be open for the community to ask questions.
If there's anything you would like to know from the candidates before you cast your vote, now's a pretty good time to get some answers :-)
Cheers,
- Andreas
Randal L. Schwartz
2012-01-28 12:33:08 UTC
Permalink
Ken> Do you intend to continue with these previous commitments?

Yes.

Ken> If so, what do you intend to put in place in order to build a legal
Ken> presence?

Ensuring that Squeak becomes a project under the Software Freedom Conservancy
within the next few weeks.


Really, just curious... you know our plans... what sort of answers did you
expect that aren't already repeatedly fully disclosed?
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<***@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion
Ken G. Brown
2012-01-28 12:33:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randal L. Schwartz
Ken> Do you intend to continue with these previous commitments?
Yes.
Ken> If so, what do you intend to put in place in order to build a legal
Ken> presence?
Ensuring that Squeak becomes a project under the Software Freedom Conservancy
within the next few weeks.
Really, just curious... you know our plans... what sort of answers did you
expect that aren't already repeatedly fully disclosed?
I am interested in what the new Candidates say, or don't say, and not what the previous board or board members or vocal minorities say.

Thank you for your responses.
You are so far one of the 3 out of 11 Candidates who have responded.

Ken G. Brown
Post by Randal L. Schwartz
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion
David T. Lewis
2012-01-28 12:33:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken G. Brown
Post by Randal L. Schwartz
Ken> Do you intend to continue with these previous commitments?
Yes.
Ken> If so, what do you intend to put in place in order to build a legal
Ken> presence?
Ensuring that Squeak becomes a project under the Software Freedom Conservancy
within the next few weeks.
Really, just curious... you know our plans... what sort of answers did you
expect that aren't already repeatedly fully disclosed?
I am interested in what the new Candidates say, or don't say, and not
what the previous board or board members or vocal minorities say.
One would hope that any new candidates who wanted to champion some
new or different direction would have at least mentioned their
intentions in that regard. I did not notice any of the candidates
doing so. No doubt you may safely draw the obvious conclusion.

Dave
Bert Freudenberg
2012-01-28 12:33:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken G. Brown
Post by Randal L. Schwartz
Ken> Do you intend to continue with these previous commitments?
Yes.
Ken> If so, what do you intend to put in place in order to build a legal
Ken> presence?
Ensuring that Squeak becomes a project under the Software Freedom Conservancy
within the next few weeks.
Really, just curious... you know our plans... what sort of answers did you
expect that aren't already repeatedly fully disclosed?
I am interested in what the new Candidates say, or don't say, and not what the previous board or board members or vocal minorities say.
Thank you for your responses.
You are so far one of the 3 out of 11 Candidates who have responded.
Ken G. Brown
You really want a "me too" response?

Most here will know this but since we fortunately attracted new community members I'll try to summarize:

Getting a legal presence established has been a community goal for years. It's where the term "Squeak Foundation" comes from - the original idea was to create a non-profit organization. Turned out none of us engineer-types could make it happen, so a while ago we decided to outsource that part. The Software Freedom Conservancy is an organization precisely for that, it provides a legal home for many projects, better and lesser known:

http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/members/

The prerequisite for joining the SFC is to run a Free Software project. That's one of the major driving forces of getting a license-clean release. We're now literally days away from that release, and becoming a proper SFC member. The SOB worked with the SFC lawyers for far more than a year, but now the contract is ready to be signed.

I don't really see why anyone would be opposed to that. Nobody, board member or not, spoke out previously against it. So I'd fully expect all candidates to support this, and I don't see the point of your question.

But here's my short answer: Me too. ;)

- Bert -
Ken G. Brown
2012-01-28 12:33:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bert Freudenberg
Post by Ken G. Brown
Post by Randal L. Schwartz
Ken> Do you intend to continue with these previous commitments?
Yes.
Ken> If so, what do you intend to put in place in order to build a legal
Ken> presence?
Ensuring that Squeak becomes a project under the Software Freedom Conservancy
within the next few weeks.
Really, just curious... you know our plans... what sort of answers did you
expect that aren't already repeatedly fully disclosed?
I am interested in what the new Candidates say, or don't say, and not what the previous board or board members or vocal minorities say.
Thank you for your responses.
You are so far one of the 3 out of 11 Candidates who have responded.
Ken G. Brown
You really want a "me too" response?
http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/members/
The prerequisite for joining the SFC is to run a Free Software project. That's one of the major driving forces of getting a license-clean release. We're now literally days away from that release, and becoming a proper SFC member. The SOB worked with the SFC lawyers for far more than a year, but now the contract is ready to be signed.
I don't really see why anyone would be opposed to that. Nobody, board member or not, spoke out previously against it. So I'd fully expect all candidates to support this, and I don't see the point of your question.
But here's my short answer: Me too. ;)
- Bert -
It's not what I want as a response from you that counts, it's what you want to give the community as a response that matters, and thank you for yours.

I think that before any contract is signed on behalf of the community, it might be good for the community to be able to have a look at it beforehand and maybe even discuss it a bit? Can you provide appropriate info or links?

One thing I would like to see is the documentation that empowers the Squeak Oversight Board to sign such a contract on behalf of the community; 'Terms of Reference', 'Constitution' or whatever. How did these SOB powers become enshrined? What gives the board the right to sign contracts on behalf of the Squeak community? Is the SOB signing on behalf of Pharo/Cuis/Cobalt/etc. as well?

Thx,
Ken G. Brown
Bert Freudenberg
2012-01-28 12:33:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken G. Brown
Post by Bert Freudenberg
Post by Ken G. Brown
Post by Randal L. Schwartz
Ken> Do you intend to continue with these previous commitments?
Yes.
Ken> If so, what do you intend to put in place in order to build a legal
Ken> presence?
Ensuring that Squeak becomes a project under the Software Freedom Conservancy
within the next few weeks.
Really, just curious... you know our plans... what sort of answers did you
expect that aren't already repeatedly fully disclosed?
I am interested in what the new Candidates say, or don't say, and not what the previous board or board members or vocal minorities say.
Thank you for your responses.
You are so far one of the 3 out of 11 Candidates who have responded.
Ken G. Brown
You really want a "me too" response?
http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/members/
The prerequisite for joining the SFC is to run a Free Software project. That's one of the major driving forces of getting a license-clean release. We're now literally days away from that release, and becoming a proper SFC member. The SOB worked with the SFC lawyers for far more than a year, but now the contract is ready to be signed.
I don't really see why anyone would be opposed to that. Nobody, board member or not, spoke out previously against it. So I'd fully expect all candidates to support this, and I don't see the point of your question.
But here's my short answer: Me too. ;)
- Bert -
It's not what I want as a response from you that counts, it's what you want to give the community as a response that matters, and thank you for yours.
I think that before any contract is signed on behalf of the community, it might be good for the community to be able to have a look at it beforehand and maybe even discuss it a bit? Can you provide appropriate info or links?
One thing I would like to see is the documentation that empowers the Squeak Oversight Board to sign such a contract on behalf of the community; 'Terms of Reference', 'Constitution' or whatever. How did these SOB powers become enshrined? What gives the board the right to sign contracts on behalf of the Squeak community? Is the SOB signing on behalf of Pharo/Cuis/Cobalt/etc. as well?
Thx,
Ken G. Brown
We were elected, that's where our powers come from. Elected by the Squeak community, that is everyone who considers themselves to be part of it.

In fact I still don't get your point. Serving on the board is much more of a duty than a fun affair. You make it sound like someone grabbed power from the rightful owners, when in fact the community is glad someone stepped up to take care of e.g. legal and financial issues.

Thankfully every year we find a couple of people willing to serve on the Board too, when the only reward they can expect is knowing they are doing their share to keep Squeak alive. I still have not figured out what you consider to be your share. I mean, what *you* are doing, instead of expecting others to do.

- Bert -
Ken G. Brown
2012-01-28 12:33:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bert Freudenberg
Post by Ken G. Brown
Post by Bert Freudenberg
Post by Ken G. Brown
Post by Randal L. Schwartz
Ken> Do you intend to continue with these previous commitments?
Yes.
Ken> If so, what do you intend to put in place in order to build a legal
Ken> presence?
Ensuring that Squeak becomes a project under the Software Freedom Conservancy
within the next few weeks.
Really, just curious... you know our plans... what sort of answers did you
expect that aren't already repeatedly fully disclosed?
I am interested in what the new Candidates say, or don't say, and not what the previous board or board members or vocal minorities say.
Thank you for your responses.
You are so far one of the 3 out of 11 Candidates who have responded.
Ken G. Brown
You really want a "me too" response?
http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/members/
The prerequisite for joining the SFC is to run a Free Software project. That's one of the major driving forces of getting a license-clean release. We're now literally days away from that release, and becoming a proper SFC member. The SOB worked with the SFC lawyers for far more than a year, but now the contract is ready to be signed.
I don't really see why anyone would be opposed to that. Nobody, board member or not, spoke out previously against it. So I'd fully expect all candidates to support this, and I don't see the point of your question.
But here's my short answer: Me too. ;)
- Bert -
It's not what I want as a response from you that counts, it's what you want to give the community as a response that matters, and thank you for yours.
I think that before any contract is signed on behalf of the community, it might be good for the community to be able to have a look at it beforehand and maybe even discuss it a bit? Can you provide appropriate info or links?
One thing I would like to see is the documentation that empowers the Squeak Oversight Board to sign such a contract on behalf of the community; 'Terms of Reference', 'Constitution' or whatever. How did these SOB powers become enshrined? What gives the board the right to sign contracts on behalf of the Squeak community? Is the SOB signing on behalf of Pharo/Cuis/Cobalt/etc. as well?
Thx,
Ken G. Brown
We were elected, that's where our powers come from. Elected by the Squeak community, that is everyone who considers themselves to be part of it.
In fact I still don't get your point. Serving on the board is much more of a duty than a fun affair. You make it sound like someone grabbed power from the rightful owners, when in fact the community is glad someone stepped up to take care of e.g. legal and financial issues.
Thankfully every year we find a couple of people willing to serve on the Board too, when the only reward they can expect is knowing they are doing their share to keep Squeak alive. I still have not figured out what you consider to be your share. I mean, what *you* are doing, instead of expecting others to do.
- Bert -
This isn't about what *I* am doing or not doing, it is about what you all as Candidates intend to do.

And I thank everyone that has previously served and chooses to try to serve again on the SOB.

Ken G. brown
Jecel Assumpcao Jr
2012-01-28 12:33:10 UTC
Permalink
I would like to thank Ken for trying to start a discussion here. In the
previous election, I ended up searching the archives of squeak-dev to
try to get a sense of what some of the candidates were about and found
that some had never posted more than a "me too" just once!

About the SFC, my opinion is the same as Igor's. It is not ideal but we
really have no choice if none of us is going to do all the legal work.

In my opinion, the board has one single authority: the community as a
whole owns the "Squeak" brand and elects this group of people to take
care of it. Anything else is derived from that. Handling money,
technical decisions or whatever else. And signing a contract with the
SFC.

About commercial use, I am fully in favor. Part of that is supporting
users. Our largest group of users right now is the hundreds of thousands
of students and teachers using Etoys. If we were a company, you would
say that the Squeakland foundation is our largest customer. Of course,
if we were a company we would be charging to support them. But to me, it
isn't ethical for us to just drop them because were have been doing it
for free and our resources are limited. Some might claim that it isn't
our fault that somebody else "sold" them Etoys, but in my commercial
efforts I sometimes have to honor other people's promises at my own
expense.

Given that Pharo now exists, I think we can afford to move more slowly.
It is not that I don't want to go where Pharo is going, quite the
opposite. But if they are doing such a good job of supporting one group
of customers (developers like ourselves) then we can focus on another
group until we have more resources.

I would like Squeak 4.1 (or 4.2, as the case may be) to be a small
kernel into which you can load stuff like Etoys and/or Croquet, web
development and email client and so on. All the Squeakland folks would
have to do would be to ship our image preloaded with Etoys 5, Connectors
and DrGeo.

-- Jecel
Randal L. Schwartz
2012-01-28 12:33:11 UTC
Permalink
Jecel> I would like Squeak 4.1 (or 4.2, as the case may be) to be a small
Jecel> kernel into which you can load stuff like Etoys and/or Croquet, web
Jecel> development and email client and so on.

I see 4.1 as a snapshot of the progress made in the past nine months
since Andreas opened up trunk.

And once 4.1 is in everyone's hands, we can start to make the core even
smaller. 4.2 may be as you say... a small core with a bootstrapping
installer (Metacello?) that can load any combination of public and
private things to spin out whatever image you want.
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<***@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion
Matthew Fulmer
2012-01-28 12:33:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randal L. Schwartz
And once 4.1 is in everyone's hands, we can start to make the core even
smaller. 4.2 may be as you say... a small core with a bootstrapping
installer (Metacello?) that can load any combination of public and
private things to spin out whatever image you want.
I like that plan. I'd like to help make a practical package
loading tool for Squeak, and test it on Cobalt. If it can make
Cobalt loadable, it can handle just about anything except Etoys
(in its current form)
--
Matthew Fulmer (a.k.a. Tapple)
karl ramberg
2012-01-28 12:33:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Fulmer
Post by Randal L. Schwartz
And once 4.1 is in everyone's hands, we can start to make the core even
smaller. ?4.2 may be as you say... a small core with a bootstrapping
installer (Metacello?) that can load any combination of public and
private things to spin out whatever image you want.
I like that plan. I'd like to help make a practical package
loading tool for Squeak, and test it on Cobalt. If it can make
Cobalt loadable, it can handle just about anything except Etoys
(in its current form)
--
Matthew Fulmer (a.k.a. Tapple)
Fast general package/project loading would rock. Image segments are
only good for smaller projects, not for packages with lots of changes
and code.

Karl
Andreas Raab
2012-01-28 12:33:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken G. Brown
I think that before any contract is signed on behalf of the community, it might be good for the community to be able to have a look at it beforehand and maybe even discuss it a bit? Can you provide appropriate info or links?
Yes, we should make the agreement accessible.
Post by Ken G. Brown
One thing I would like to see is the documentation that empowers the Squeak Oversight Board to sign such a contract on behalf of the community; 'Terms of Reference', 'Constitution' or whatever. How did these SOB powers become enshrined? What gives the board the right to sign contracts on behalf of the Squeak community?
Being elected by the Squeak community.
Post by Ken G. Brown
Is the SOB signing on behalf of Pharo/Cuis/Cobalt/etc. as well?
No, of course not. We cannot claim to act as representatives of these
communities, consequently we do not act on their behalf.

Cheers,
- Andreas
Igor Stasenko
2012-01-28 12:33:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken G. Brown
Post by Bert Freudenberg
Post by Ken G. Brown
Post by Randal L. Schwartz
Ken> Do you intend to continue with these previous commitments?
Yes.
Ken> If so, what do you intend to put in place in order to build a legal
Ken> presence?
Ensuring that Squeak becomes a project under the Software Freedom Conservancy
within the next few weeks.
Really, just curious... you know our plans... what sort of answers did you
expect that aren't already repeatedly fully disclosed?
I am interested in what the new Candidates say, or don't say, and not what the previous board or board members or vocal minorities say.
Thank you for your responses.
You are so far one of the 3 out of 11 Candidates who have responded.
Ken G. Brown
You really want a "me too" response?
? ? ? http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/members/
The prerequisite for joining the SFC is to run a Free Software project. That's one of the major driving forces of getting a license-clean release. We're now literally days away from that release, and becoming a proper SFC member. The SOB worked with the SFC lawyers for far more than a year, but now the contract is ready to be signed.
I don't really see why anyone would be opposed to that. Nobody, board member or not, spoke out previously against it. So I'd fully expect all candidates to support this, and I don't see the point of your question.
But here's my short answer: Me too. ;)
- Bert -
It's not what I want as a response from you that counts, it's what you want to give the community as a response that matters, and thank you for yours.
I think that before any contract is signed on behalf of the community, it might be good for the community to be able to have a look at it beforehand and maybe even discuss it a bit? Can you provide appropriate info or links?
One thing I would like to see is the documentation that empowers the Squeak Oversight Board to sign such a contract on behalf of the community; ?'Terms of Reference', 'Constitution' or whatever. How did these SOB powers become enshrined? What gives the board the right to sign contracts on behalf of the Squeak community? Is the SOB signing on behalf of Pharo/Cuis/Cobalt/etc. as well?
Ken, i am not much fan of joining SCF, if you ask me. But if you vote
against joining it , you have to give people an alternative:
- who will legally handle a tax-free donations to Squeak
- who will represent us in court, to protect our intellectual property
and many other things which i prefer to never hear about in my life.
But the problem is, that these things exists, no matter if i want it
or not :)

So, if you (or board candidate) know any better alternative, which
will cover these legal issues, feel free to present them.
Post by Ken G. Brown
Thx,
Ken G. Brown
--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
Colin Putney
2012-01-28 12:33:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bert Freudenberg
Post by Ken G. Brown
I am interested in what the new Candidates say, or don't say, and not what the previous board or board members or vocal minorities say.
Thank you for your responses.
You are so far one of the 3 out of 11 Candidates who have responded.
Ken G. Brown
You really want a "me too" response?
Hey it's politics. The point of the question wasn't to solicit information, but to get you to go on record. Then, if for some reason the SFC project doesn't pan out, it's evidence that you haven't kept your word.

Colin
Michael Haupt
2012-01-28 12:33:12 UTC
Permalink
Colin,
Post by Colin Putney
Hey it's politics. The point of the question wasn't to solicit information, but to get you to go on record. Then, if for some reason the SFC project doesn't pan out, it's evidence that you haven't kept your word.
I think that nails it. Thanks.

Best,

Michael
Bert Freudenberg
2012-01-28 12:33:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin Putney
Post by Bert Freudenberg
Post by Ken G. Brown
I am interested in what the new Candidates say, or don't say, and not what the previous board or board members or vocal minorities say.
Thank you for your responses.
You are so far one of the 3 out of 11 Candidates who have responded.
Ken G. Brown
You really want a "me too" response?
Hey it's politics. The point of the question wasn't to solicit information, but to get you to go on record. Then, if for some reason the SFC project doesn't pan out, it's evidence that you haven't kept your word.
Colin
Thanks for explaining. I honestly couldn't get it.

Ken - I'm an engineer. Not a politician, not even a manager. Squeak to me has much more to do with friendship than politics. I'm not running for the board to gain power, but because friends help each other out, and in my mind the more experienced should take a larger burden.

If you're looking for a politician, do not vote for me.

- Bert -
Göran Krampe
2012-01-28 12:33:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bert Freudenberg
Ken - I'm an engineer. Not a politician, not even a manager. Squeak to me has much more to do with friendship than politics. I'm not running for the board to gain power, but because friends help each other out, and in my mind the more experienced should take a larger burden.
If you're looking for a politician, do not vote for me.
- Bert -
You just earned my vote. Sorry for "breaching" my role as Election
leader by giving a personal reflection here, but I am all with you Bert
on this one.

regards, G?ran
Ken G. Brown
2012-01-28 12:33:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bert Freudenberg
Post by Colin Putney
Post by Bert Freudenberg
Post by Ken G. Brown
I am interested in what the new Candidates say, or don't say, and not what the previous board or board members or vocal minorities say.
Thank you for your responses.
You are so far one of the 3 out of 11 Candidates who have responded.
Ken G. Brown
You really want a "me too" response?
Hey it's politics. The point of the question wasn't to solicit information, but to get you to go on record. Then, if for some reason the SFC project doesn't pan out, it's evidence that you haven't kept your word.
Colin
Thanks for explaining. I honestly couldn't get it.
Ken - I'm an engineer. Not a politician, not even a manager. Squeak to me has much more to do with friendship than politics. I'm not running for the board to gain power, but because friends help each other out, and in my mind the more experienced should take a larger burden.
If you're looking for a politician, do not vote for me.
- Bert -
I too am an engineer and actually have almost zero interest in politics, so I think Colin is completely off the mark with respect to my intentions. The reason I asked my questions was in the hope that Candidates would respond in a way that I could determine who I wished to vote for. If this is politics though, I guess then I'm guilty.
Post by Bert Freudenberg
From this engineer's point of view, I don't think the way the Squeak Oversight Board (SOB) works is engineered very well at the moment, and I have seen ample experimental evidence that shows that.
I want to see people on the board who are interested in engineering a solid SOB with clear and transparent-to-the-community 'Rules of Governance' or 'Constitution'. I think of this as the well defined and published-for-all-to see, API for the SOB with a good set of tests and checks and balances as well. This would hopefully ensure that next year's SOB would work the same or better than last year's, independent of the individual members at the time.

If the SOB were a piece of software you were designing, I don't think you would preferentially make it a spaghetti-coded black box that was allowed to randomly do whatever it happened to feel like at any particular moment when you give it some inputs, and with no confidence that the next time those same inputs are given, that the results will be the same. I would also like to be able to easily look inside at any time to see how things are implemented, see how things are going and have been going. eg. financial accounts, minutes of the meetings. I would like to see a well engineered SOB built for the future with the best principles, in 'the best possible way'. I don't want to see the SOB built from the point of view of 'the simplest thing that could possibly work' and have to be redone every year.

You may have noted Ken Causey's recent email in response to Gary Dunn <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2010-March/146122.html>. It seems that others are also unclear about the way the SOB works, even Candidates who will have to deal with it.

If you or any other Candidates are for a well engineered SOB built for the future, while minimizing politics and legal mumbo jumbo, then my votes are for you.

Ken G. Brown
Bert Freudenberg
2012-01-28 12:33:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken G. Brown
Post by Bert Freudenberg
Ken - I'm an engineer. Not a politician, not even a manager. Squeak to me has much more to do with friendship than politics. I'm not running for the board to gain power, but because friends help each other out, and in my mind the more experienced should take a larger burden.
If you're looking for a politician, do not vote for me.
- Bert -
I too am an engineer and actually have almost zero interest in politics, so I think Colin is completely off the mark with respect to my intentions. The reason I asked my questions was in the hope that Candidates would respond in a way that I could determine who I wished to vote for. If this is politics though, I guess then I'm guilty.
From this engineer's point of view, I don't think the way the Squeak Oversight Board (SOB) works is engineered very well at the moment, and I have seen ample experimental evidence that shows that.
I want to see people on the board who are interested in engineering a solid SOB with clear and transparent-to-the-community 'Rules of Governance' or 'Constitution'. I think of this as the well defined and published-for-all-to see, API for the SOB with a good set of tests and checks and balances as well. This would hopefully ensure that next year's SOB would work the same or better than last year's, independent of the individual members at the time.
If the SOB were a piece of software you were designing, I don't think you would preferentially make it a spaghetti-coded black box that was allowed to randomly do whatever it happened to feel like at any particular moment when you give it some inputs, and with no confidence that the next time those same inputs are given, that the results will be the same. I would also like to be able to easily look inside at any time to see how things are implemented, see how things are going and have been going. eg. financial accounts, minutes of the meetings. I would like to see a well engineered SOB built for the future with the best principles, in 'the best possible way'. I don't want to see the SOB built from the point of view of 'the simplest thing that could possibly work' and have to be redone every year.
You may have noted Ken Causey's recent email in response to Gary Dunn <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2010-March/146122.html>. It seems that others are also unclear about the way the SOB works, even Candidates who will have to deal with it.
If you or any other Candidates are for a well engineered SOB built for the future, while minimizing politics and legal mumbo jumbo, then my votes are for you.
Ken G. Brown
Now that sounds a lot more friendly. Thanks for putting it in terms I can understand ;)

The role and definition of the board is slowly evolving. We did not have anything like it for most of Squeak's history, though there were kings, dark ages, and self-declared dictators [1].

Electing that gang of seven every year since 2006 somehow has worked out, even without explicit rules. Maybe joining the SFC enables us to evolve to something a bit more organized. E.g., the idea for a more explicit membership model that Craig listed in his campaign statement, I like that. In fact I brought that up as a possible model because I'm involved with SugarLabs, too [2]. We also borrowed the term "oversight board" from SugarLabs this year.

As for a "constitution", I don't see how rigid rules or any other radical change (as demanded by some) would be helpful, nor find many supporters. The best we could hope for IMHO is putting the current practice in writing (though even that would be hard), and then gradually improving on that. Having it written down would be a Good Thing, in particular for newcomers, as long as it is not written in stone. But that would be impractical anyway ;)

OTOH if indeed someone could come up with a "well engineered SOB" (assuming elegance and simplicity is even possible when designing group processes) I'd be happy to support that.

- Bert -

[1] Great summary by G?ran: http://news.squeak.org/2007/06/30/squeak-tale/

[2] http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members
Ken G. Brown
2012-01-28 12:33:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bert Freudenberg
Post by Ken G. Brown
Post by Bert Freudenberg
Ken - I'm an engineer. Not a politician, not even a manager. Squeak to me has much more to do with friendship than politics. I'm not running for the board to gain power, but because friends help each other out, and in my mind the more experienced should take a larger burden.
If you're looking for a politician, do not vote for me.
- Bert -
I too am an engineer and actually have almost zero interest in politics, so I think Colin is completely off the mark with respect to my intentions. The reason I asked my questions was in the hope that Candidates would respond in a way that I could determine who I wished to vote for. If this is politics though, I guess then I'm guilty.
From this engineer's point of view, I don't think the way the Squeak Oversight Board (SOB) works is engineered very well at the moment, and I have seen ample experimental evidence that shows that.
I want to see people on the board who are interested in engineering a solid SOB with clear and transparent-to-the-community 'Rules of Governance' or 'Constitution'. I think of this as the well defined and published-for-all-to see, API for the SOB with a good set of tests and checks and balances as well. This would hopefully ensure that next year's SOB would work the same or better than last year's, independent of the individual members at the time.
If the SOB were a piece of software you were designing, I don't think you would preferentially make it a spaghetti-coded black box that was allowed to randomly do whatever it happened to feel like at any particular moment when you give it some inputs, and with no confidence that the next time those same inputs are given, that the results will be the same. I would also like to be able to easily look inside at any time to see how things are implemented, see how things are going and have been going. eg. financial accounts, minutes of the meetings. I would like to see a well engineered SOB built for the future with the best principles, in 'the best possible way'. I don't want to see the SOB built from the point of view of 'the simplest thing that could possibly work' and have to be redone every year.
You may have noted Ken Causey's recent email in response to Gary Dunn <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2010-March/146122.html>. It seems that others are also unclear about the way the SOB works, even Candidates who will have to deal with it.
If you or any other Candidates are for a well engineered SOB built for the future, while minimizing politics and legal mumbo jumbo, then my votes are for you.
Ken G. Brown
Now that sounds a lot more friendly. Thanks for putting it in terms I can understand ;)
Hey, I'm a friendly guy! :) With a good heart. Please take what I say in the best possible way.
My intentions are only positive for the Squeak community overall.
Post by Bert Freudenberg
The role and definition of the board is slowly evolving. We did not have anything like it for most of Squeak's history, though there were kings, dark ages, and self-declared dictators [1].
Electing that gang of seven every year since 2006 somehow has worked out, even without explicit rules. Maybe joining the SFC enables us to evolve to something a bit more organized. E.g., the idea for a more explicit membership model that Craig listed in his campaign statement, I like that. In fact I brought that up as a possible model because I'm involved with SugarLabs, too [2]. We also borrowed the term "oversight board" from SugarLabs this year.
I haven't looked into the way SugarLabs is set up. Maybe that would be good. Hopefully the SOB can make a good decision with respect to going that way.
Post by Bert Freudenberg
As for a "constitution", I don't see how rigid rules or any other radical change (as demanded by some) would be helpful, nor find many supporters. The best we could hope for IMHO is putting the current practice in writing (though even that would be hard), and then gradually improving on that.
This would appear to me to be worth pursuing. Maybe Andreas's list of 'Release Tasks' <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2010-March/146246.html> could be put in there in a sub-heading.
And of course, how the SOB relates to the release team in particular, and teams in general would be good for all to see.
Post by Bert Freudenberg
Having it written down would be a Good Thing, in particular for newcomers, as long as it is not written in stone. But that would be impractical anyway ;)
OTOH if indeed someone could come up with a "well engineered SOB" (assuming elegance and simplicity is even possible when designing group processes) I'd be happy to support that.
I think almost anything is better than the current situation as far as documenting what the SOB is, does, and how it is intended to operate.

Ken G. Brown
Post by Bert Freudenberg
- Bert -
[1] Great summary by G?ran: http://news.squeak.org/2007/06/30/squeak-tale/
[2] http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members
Michael Haupt
2012-01-28 12:33:14 UTC
Permalink
Hi Ken,
If you or any other Candidates are for a well engineered SOB built for the future, while minimizing politics and legal mumbo jumbo ...
believe it or not, I'd *love* to. Absolutely. :-)

Best,

Michael
Chris Muller
2012-01-28 12:33:15 UTC
Permalink
Hi Ken, I just saw your message here and feel compelled to heed your
calls to respond!

Let me first just say, with me you'd be getting a freshman, not an
experienced board member. When it comes to technical or usability
issues about Squeak, I have quite a bit of opinion and input to
contribute. However, in terms "building a legal presence", I only
know what I _want_, not necessarily how to go about it. My knowledge
of, and interest in, legal matters is very low. I am more interested
in the outcome of these processes; a Squeak that external entities
like corporations can feel safe to use (I've always felt it was
legally safe to use, but corporations must be more conservative).
Legal wrangling takes time away from technical wrangling, but the
results it produces (has produced!) is very important and I will be
happy to voice my support with the majority when it comes to legal
matters, since I know we all pretty much have the same goals w.r.t.
this.
Post by Ken G. Brown
I want to see people on the board who are interested in engineering a solid SOB with clear and transparent-to-the-community 'Rules of Governance' or 'Constitution'. I think of this as the well defined and published-for-all-to see, API for the SOB with a good set of tests and checks and balances as well. This would hopefully ensure that next year's SOB would work the same or better than last year's, independent of the individual members at the time.
In terms of a Constitution, I must confess that I am not sure what
would be in it. Although I would not _oppose_ a constitution that was
short and general enough to fit around what we all know to be our
current direction, I do question its purpose. I would not be
interested in spending a lot of time and resources wrangling on its
words. For whatever differences that exist in the community, we have
medium to work them out; this list. I am interested in parties
working out their differences based on our continued discussion on
this list.

Even if we had one, I also wonder what remediation of our differences
a constitution would provide that we don't already have. What if one
or more members of the board weren't abiding by the constitution? As
I see it, there are two choices:

- Community likes what's being done, constitution is out of date and
needs updated.
- Community doesn't like what's being done, but board member(s) can
be recalled today anyway, if they are bad-enough can't they?

In either case, what is the net-plus provided by a static document?
To me, "constitution" is a reflection of each of our own personal
constitutions; where we've said we want to go. While I'm not opposed
to writing some general values down on paper, I don't currently
understand how it would help resolve any differences that might come
up, and I would be somewhat concerned whether such a document would be
used as a political tool that taxes community resources.

- Chris
Post by Ken G. Brown
Post by Bert Freudenberg
Post by Colin Putney
Post by Bert Freudenberg
Post by Ken G. Brown
I am interested in what the new Candidates say, or don't say, and not what the previous board or board members or vocal minorities say.
Thank you for your responses.
You are so far one of the 3 out of 11 Candidates who have responded.
Ken G. Brown
You really want a "me too" response?
Hey it's politics. The point of the question wasn't to solicit information, but to get you to go on record. Then, if for some reason the SFC project doesn't pan out, it's evidence that you haven't kept your word.
Colin
Thanks for explaining. I honestly couldn't get it.
Ken - I'm an engineer. Not a politician, not even a manager. Squeak to me has much more to do with friendship than politics. I'm not running for the board to gain power, but because friends help each other out, and in my mind the more experienced should take a larger burden.
If you're looking for a politician, do not vote for me.
- Bert -
I too am an engineer and actually have almost zero interest in politics, so I think Colin is completely off the mark with respect to my intentions. The reason I asked my questions was in the hope that Candidates would respond in a way that I could determine who I wished to vote for. If this is politics though, I guess then I'm guilty.
Post by Bert Freudenberg
From this engineer's point of view, I don't think the way the Squeak Oversight Board (SOB) works is engineered very well at the moment, and I have seen ample experimental evidence that shows that.
I want to see people on the board who are interested in engineering a solid SOB with clear and transparent-to-the-community 'Rules of Governance' or 'Constitution'. I think of this as the well defined and published-for-all-to see, API for the SOB with a good set of tests and checks and balances as well. This would hopefully ensure that next year's SOB would work the same or better than last year's, independent of the individual members at the time.
If the SOB were a piece of software you were designing, I don't think you would preferentially make it a spaghetti-coded black box that was allowed to randomly do whatever it happened to feel like at any particular moment when you give it some inputs, and with no confidence that the next time those same inputs are given, that the results will be the same. I would also like to be able to easily look inside at any time to see how things are implemented, see how things are going and have been going. eg. financial accounts, minutes of the meetings. I would like to see a well engineered SOB built for the future with the best principles, in 'the best possible way'. I don't want to see the SOB built from the point of view of 'the simplest thing that could possibly work' and have to be redone every year.
You may have noted Ken Causey's recent email in response to Gary Dunn <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2010-March/146122.html>. It seems that others are also unclear about the way the SOB works, even Candidates who will have to deal with it.
If you or any other Candidates are for a well engineered SOB built for the future, while minimizing politics and legal mumbo jumbo, then my votes are for you.
Ken G. Brown
Ken G. Brown
2012-01-28 12:33:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Muller
Hi Ken, I just saw your message here and feel compelled to heed your
calls to respond!
Yay! Thx.
Post by Chris Muller
Let me first just say, with me you'd be getting a freshman, not an
experienced board member. When it comes to technical or usability
issues about Squeak, I have quite a bit of opinion and input to
contribute. However, in terms "building a legal presence", I only
know what I _want_, not necessarily how to go about it. My knowledge
of, and interest in, legal matters is very low. I am more interested
in the outcome of these processes; a Squeak that external entities
like corporations can feel safe to use (I've always felt it was
legally safe to use, but corporations must be more conservative).
Legal wrangling takes time away from technical wrangling, but the
results it produces (has produced!) is very important and I will be
happy to voice my support with the majority when it comes to legal
matters, since I know we all pretty much have the same goals w.r.t.
this.
Post by Ken G. Brown
I want to see people on the board who are interested in engineering a solid SOB with clear and transparent-to-the-community 'Rules of Governance' or 'Constitution'. I think of this as the well defined and published-for-all-to see, API for the SOB with a good set of tests and checks and balances as well. This would hopefully ensure that next year's SOB would work the same or better than last year's, independent of the individual members at the time.
In terms of a Constitution, I must confess that I am not sure what
would be in it. Although I would not _oppose_ a constitution that was
short and general enough to fit around what we all know to be our
current direction, I do question its purpose. I would not be
interested in spending a lot of time and resources wrangling on its
words. For whatever differences that exist in the community, we have
medium to work them out; this list. I am interested in parties
working out their differences based on our continued discussion on
this list.
Even if we had one, I also wonder what remediation of our differences
a constitution would provide that we don't already have. What if one
or more members of the board weren't abiding by the constitution? As
- Community likes what's being done, constitution is out of date and
needs updated.
- Community doesn't like what's being done, but board member(s) can
be recalled today anyway, if they are bad-enough can't they?
I don't know, can they?
This is the point, there doesn't seem to be any way of knowing what the SOB might do other than what they decide at any point which could be anything.
And is there any view of where the money goes? Is there any money? Where is the bank account. Is there one? Who can sign on behalf of the SOB? Who will sign the contract with SFC?
And on and on.

Any non-profit group I have had anything to do with seems to have some certain basics in place that seem to be missing in our case with the SOB. At least in my limited view.
Post by Chris Muller
In either case, what is the net-plus provided by a static document?
Perhaps a completely static document may not be the best at this point, unless it were a really good one.

And don't get me wrong, I am not in favour of a bunch of time wasting legalese or politispeak either, but I think some real good fundamental guidelines would go a long ways.

Ken G. Brown
Post by Chris Muller
To me, "constitution" is a reflection of each of our own personal
constitutions; where we've said we want to go. While I'm not opposed
to writing some general values down on paper, I don't currently
understand how it would help resolve any differences that might come
up, and I would be somewhat concerned whether such a document would be
used as a political tool that taxes community resources.
- Chris
Post by Ken G. Brown
Post by Bert Freudenberg
Post by Colin Putney
Post by Bert Freudenberg
Post by Ken G. Brown
I am interested in what the new Candidates say, or don't say, and not what the previous board or board members or vocal minorities say.
Thank you for your responses.
You are so far one of the 3 out of 11 Candidates who have responded.
Ken G. Brown
You really want a "me too" response?
Hey it's politics. The point of the question wasn't to solicit information, but to get you to go on record. Then, if for some reason the SFC project doesn't pan out, it's evidence that you haven't kept your word.
Colin
Thanks for explaining. I honestly couldn't get it.
Ken - I'm an engineer. Not a politician, not even a manager. Squeak to me has much more to do with friendship than politics. I'm not running for the board to gain power, but because friends help each other out, and in my mind the more experienced should take a larger burden.
If you're looking for a politician, do not vote for me.
- Bert -
I too am an engineer and actually have almost zero interest in politics, so I think Colin is completely off the mark with respect to my intentions. The reason I asked my questions was in the hope that Candidates would respond in a way that I could determine who I wished to vote for. If this is politics though, I guess then I'm guilty.
Post by Bert Freudenberg
From this engineer's point of view, I don't think the way the Squeak Oversight Board (SOB) works is engineered very well at the moment, and I have seen ample experimental evidence that shows that.
I want to see people on the board who are interested in engineering a solid SOB with clear and transparent-to-the-community 'Rules of Governance' or 'Constitution'. I think of this as the well defined and published-for-all-to see, API for the SOB with a good set of tests and checks and balances as well. This would hopefully ensure that next year's SOB would work the same or better than last year's, independent of the individual members at the time.
If the SOB were a piece of software you were designing, I don't think you would preferentially make it a spaghetti-coded black box that was allowed to randomly do whatever it happened to feel like at any particular moment when you give it some inputs, and with no confidence that the next time those same inputs are given, that the results will be the same. I would also like to be able to easily look inside at any time to see how things are implemented, see how things are going and have been going. eg. financial accounts, minutes of the meetings. I would like to see a well engineered SOB built for the future with the best principles, in 'the best possible way'. I don't want to see the SOB built from the point of view of 'the simplest thing that could possibly work' and have to be redone every year.
You may have noted Ken Causey's recent email in response to Gary Dunn <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2010-March/146122.html>. It seems that others are also unclear about the way the SOB works, even Candidates who will have to deal with it.
If you or any other Candidates are for a well engineered SOB built for the future, while minimizing politics and legal mumbo jumbo, then my votes are for you.
Ken G. Brown
Bert Freudenberg
2012-01-28 12:33:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken G. Brown
Any non-profit group I have had anything to do with seems to have some certain basics in place that seem to be missing in our case with the SOB. At least in my limited view.
Your view is a bit limited in that it ignores history. We're just a bunch of individuals struggling to get organized. We're not a non-profit group yet. We don't have a bank account. And that's precisely where the SFC comes in.

- Bert -

Colin Putney
2012-01-28 12:33:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bert Freudenberg
Post by Ken G. Brown
Thank you for your responses.
You are so far one of the 3 out of 11 Candidates who have responded.
Ken G. Brown
You really want a "me too" response?
Ken's playing politics. The point of the question wasn't to solicit
information, but to get you to go on record. Then, if for some reason
the SFC project doesn't pan out, he can point to this statement as
evidence that you haven't kept your word.

Colin
Michael Haupt
2012-01-28 12:33:08 UTC
Permalink
Ken,
Post by Ken G. Brown
Do you intend to continue with these previous commitments?
yup.
Post by Ken G. Brown
If so, what do you intend to put in place in order to build a legal presence?
I'm not a legal expert, but I'm with Randal here: get the SFC umbrella.
Read: "me too". Sometimes it's inevitable. :-)

Best,

Michael
Edgar J. De Cleene
2012-01-28 12:33:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bert Freudenberg
Post by Ken G. Brown
Post by Randal L. Schwartz
Ken> Do you intend to continue with these previous commitments?
Yes.
Ken> If so, what do you intend to put in place in order to build a legal
Ken> presence?
Ensuring that Squeak becomes a project under the Software Freedom
Conservancy
within the next few weeks.
Really, just curious... you know our plans... what sort of answers did you
expect that aren't already repeatedly fully disclosed?
I am interested in what the new Candidates say, or don't say, and not what
the previous board or board members or vocal minorities say.
Thank you for your responses.
You are so far one of the 3 out of 11 Candidates who have responded.
Ken G. Brown
You really want a "me too" response?
Most here will know this but since we fortunately attracted new community
Getting a legal presence established has been a community goal for years. It's
where the term "Squeak Foundation" comes from - the original idea was to
create a non-profit organization. Turned out none of us engineer-types could
make it happen, so a while ago we decided to outsource that part. The Software
Freedom Conservancy is an organization precisely for that, it provides a legal
http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/members/
The prerequisite for joining the SFC is to run a Free Software project. That's
one of the major driving forces of getting a license-clean release. We're now
literally days away from that release, and becoming a proper SFC member. The
SOB worked with the SFC lawyers for far more than a year, but now the contract
is ready to be signed.
I don't really see why anyone would be opposed to that. Nobody, board member
or not, spoke out previously against it. So I'd fully expect all candidates to
support this, and I don't see the point of your question.
But here's my short answer: Me too. ;)
- Bert -
I am not a lawyer, need a good one ?
Serious, this topic have members with experience , have my vote and the odds
is they continue his good work.

Edgar
Germán Arduino
2012-01-28 12:33:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken G. Brown
Thank you for your responses.
You are so far one of the 3 out of 11 Candidates who have responded.
This is the bad symptom. As far as I remember were 3 question to
candidates, with
really few responses.

As I've said before, I think that not responding candidates don't
deserve votes. It's not
only matter of know what *each* candidate think, it's also matter of
show interest.

Germ?n.
Frank Shearar
2012-01-28 12:33:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Germán Arduino
Post by Ken G. Brown
Thank you for your responses.
You are so far one of the 3 out of 11 Candidates who have responded.
This is the bad symptom. As far as I remember were 3 question to
candidates, with
really few responses.
As I've said before, I think that not responding candidates don't
deserve votes. It's not
only matter of know what *each* candidate think, it's also matter of
show interest.
There's really no need to expect people like Randall to answer all
manner of questions.

I have a _very_ clear idea on Randall's stances on things, simply by
lurking on the channel and reading Planet Squeak. Randall really does
put it out there, communication-wise.

(I use Randall as an example: some of the other candidates are almost as
frequent in their position statements :). )

frank
Germán Arduino
2012-01-28 12:33:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Germán Arduino
Post by Ken G. Brown
Thank you for your responses.
You are so far one of the 3 out of 11 Candidates who have responded.
This is the bad symptom. As far as I remember were 3 question to
candidates, with
really few responses.
As I've said before, I think that not responding candidates don't
deserve votes. It's not
only matter of know what *each* candidate think, it's also matter of
show interest.
There's really no need to expect people like Randall to answer all manner of
questions.
I have a _very_ clear idea on Randall's stances on things, simply by lurking
on the channel and reading Planet Squeak. Randall really does put it out
there, communication-wise.
(I use Randall as an example: some of the other candidates are almost as
frequent in their position statements :). )
frank
To continue with your example, the position of Randall is well know in
tis particular
topic, but not the position of other candidates (mostly the news).

Also, other questions, would deserve an opinion of *all* the
candidates, even the
current Board members. Communication is very important and I don't like to vote
by assumptions.
Gary Dunn
2012-01-28 12:33:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randal L. Schwartz
Post by Bert Freudenberg
Post by Ken G. Brown
Post by Randal L. Schwartz
Ken> Do you intend to continue with these previous commitments?
Yes.
Ken> If so, what do you intend to put in place in order to build a legal
Ken> presence?
Ensuring that Squeak becomes a project under the Software Freedom
Conservancy
Post by Bert Freudenberg
Post by Ken G. Brown
Post by Randal L. Schwartz
within the next few weeks.
Really, just curious... you know our plans... what sort of answers did you
expect that aren't already repeatedly fully disclosed?
I am interested in what the new Candidates say, or don't say, and not
what the previous
board or board members or vocal minorities say.
Post by Bert Freudenberg
Post by Ken G. Brown
Thank you for your responses.
You are so far one of the 3 out of 11 Candidates who have responded.
Ken G. Brown
You really want a "me too" response?
Most here will know this but since we fortunately attracted new community
members I'll
Post by Bert Freudenberg
Getting a legal presence established has been a community goal for years.
It's where the
term "Squeak Foundation" comes from - the original idea was to create a
non-profit
organization. Turned out none of us engineer-types could make it happen, so
a while ago we
decided to outsource that part. The Software Freedom Conservancy is an
organization precisely
Post by Bert Freudenberg
http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/members/
The prerequisite for joining the SFC is to run a Free Software project.
That's one of the
major driving forces of getting a license-clean release. We're now
literally days away from
that release, and becoming a proper SFC member. The SOB worked with the SFC
lawyers for far
more than a year, but now the contract is ready to be signed.
Post by Bert Freudenberg
I don't really see why anyone would be opposed to that. Nobody, board
member or not,
spoke out previously against it. So I'd fully expect all candidates to
support this, and I
don't see the point of your question.
Post by Bert Freudenberg
But here's my short answer: Me too. ;)
- Bert -
It's not what I want as a response from you that counts, it's what you want
to give the
community as a response that matters, and thank you for yours.
It is the nature of communal government that no individual controls what is good for the community. There is no shortage of politicians who feel otherwise.
Post by Randal L. Schwartz
I think that before any contract is signed on behalf of the community, it
might be good
for the community to be able to have a look at it beforehand and maybe even
discuss it a
bit? Can you provide appropriate info or links?
One thing I would like to see is the documentation that empowers the Squeak
Oversight
Board to sign such a contract on behalf of the community; 'Terms of
Reference',
'Constitution' or whatever. How did these SOB powers become enshrined? What
gives the
board the right to sign contracts on behalf of the Squeak community? Is the
SOB signing on
behalf of Pharo/Cuis/Cobalt/etc. as well?
The usual practice is for the board to elect a president, or to have the community elect the officers the same time they elect the board. The president would sign, on behalf of the board. The board is empowered by elections held by a self-organizing group of people. There is no higher authority.

Cobalt and the others are distinct communities. The relicensing effort will affect them to the extent they rely on the Squeak code base. From what I have seen this is all good.

The decision to join the SFC can be reversed in the future should Squeak grow large enough to want to bring those functions in-house.
--
Gary Dunn, Honolulu
***@aloha.com
http://openslate.net/
http://e9erust.blogspot.com/
Sent from a Newton 2100 via Mail V
Ken Causey
2012-01-28 12:33:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Dunn
The usual practice is for the board to elect a president, or to have
the community elect the officers the same time they elect the board.
The president would sign, on behalf of the board.
This is not OUR usual practice.

The Squeak Oversight Board is a flat board with no designated officers,
no leaders. Yes in practice usually one of us is more pushy than the
others and has a tendency to take charge. And we do sign up for tasks
and even have a few jobs that we take on for the entire year. But when
a decision has to actually be made we discuss it equally and come up
with a solution that we can all agree to unanimously.

Ken
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20100309/0eddca7c/attachment.pgp
Matthew Fulmer
2012-01-28 12:33:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken G. Brown
At <http://www.squeak.org/Foundation/> it says the Squeak Oversight Board is "building a legal presence".
Another apparently official SOB site site <http://squeakboard.wordpress.com/our-mission/>
mentions as one of the goals of the SOB is "a solid legal foundation"
Do you intend to continue with these previous commitments?
If so, what do you intend to put in place in order to build a legal presence?
If not, do you intend to change the SOB www presence goals as stated?
I put in my fair share of work a year ago to make this happen,
and am thrilled we can finally put this relicensing project
behind us. I have worked a little bit with the SFC and see no
reason not to proceed as planned
--
Matthew Fulmer (a.k.a. Tapple)
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...