Hi Norbert,
I can understand your concerns. It may look a bit like the announced
board members take over without being based on the community. Of
course there is no such intent and I think the processes should be
transparent and the interests of the community should always be taken
into account. Yet, we intentionally chose not to do a democratic setup
because of the negative experience we made with Squeak and its
SqueakFoundation. The democratic setup and a board that didn't
actively steer the direction of development and make decisions
paralyzed the community because of the too diverging interests.
This situation eventually lead to the decision to start Pharo.
Therefore, we really want to make sure that we do not do the same
mistakes again. And this is exactly also why I think its important to
instantiate a board as early as possible. If we wait until a lot of
people have joined (and I can imagine that this will happen as there
does not seem to be much progress in Squeak right now), the risk is
that we again loose our focus. Just to give an example: even if people
come to Pharo and use it for EToys, I still want to be able to remove
it.
You ask why Marcus and Mike? On the one hand, both bring a lot of
experience from managing previous Squeak releases (3.8 and 3.9) and
both have a deep know-how from being actively involved in Squeak for
many years. On the other hand, with Mike we have another guy from
industry, so we have a balance between academia and industry (although
I'm also involved in research with my PhD, I consider myself as an
industry guy because netstyle.ch/cmsbox is the main reason I'm pushing
Pharo).
Cheers,
Adrian
On Jul 17, 2008, at 10:05 , Norbert Hartl wrote:
Hi,
that is very very early for the installation of a "board". What
are the topics only a board can do? I think at this stage of project
existence it should be a goal to involve everyone participating as
much as possible. And I doubt the installation of a board supports
this. I think you first need a community that you want to "steer".
I have the impression we really should care about transparency.
Announcing a board and a board "model" without any prior
announcement or
discussion is not very sensible to other people involved.
I can live with this board but e.g. I want to know what/where put
Marcus and Michael in charge? Both are rather absent from this list
and Marcus is "recovering slowly". If there were any decisions that
must have been made while meeting in personal or by private email.
That's what I mean. Please correct me if I missed something important.
Maybe it is just whining from my site and not worth it. But I'm really
sensible to such things and I (too) must organize very well where to
spend my spare time.
Norbert
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 09:30 +0200, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Hello everybody
We are happy to announce a board for Pharo! So far, Pharo has mainly
been "directed" by Stef who initiated
the project. Now that the community grows and Pharo makes progress,
the board will bring some more
structure into the decision making process.
We don't have bylaws or any rules written down yet but the idea is to
run it similar to the Apache board. That
is, new board members are elected by existing board members. The
rational is that we want to assure continuity
to be able to steadily push Pharo forward.
The current board members are:
- Marcus Denker
- Stefane Ducasse
- Adrian Lienhard
- Michael Rueger
Stef
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
