Hi Stef, this little transparency made everything clear for me. Thank you very much sharing your opinion and your emails. This mail goes into the archive and answers a lot of questions. Fini!
I didn't want to opt against some of the board members. Marcus and Mike I met in person already. And I appreciated already the work together with Adrien. So, this _is_ indeed a fine board (for me) ;) Norbert On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 16:22 +0200, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > Hi norbert > > > I think that the board should not be really active right now. > But may be there will be time where we will need to take decisions. > My take on that is that I would like to have a really transparent > process > similar to what we are doing now: > - emails in the mailing-list, > - nice exchange (as for the stream discussions), > - seriously I do not have any preconceived ideas (even on namespace - > ok on > namespace I have some ideas :)), > > We want to be influenced by contributing people. > > Tthe point is that **we** the list active members can take decision and > that in case of deadlock the board can give us some way to take > decision. > > For the fact that this is early or not, I do not know, I'm more > lenient :) > so I thought let it go for after, other boarders saw it in another way > and this > was ok for me too. > > At the end, I'm **happy** (in the naive sense) because I do not want > pharo to > be my project. I want pharo to be **our** project. But we need to be > able to > take decisions and build a vision. So this is why I accepted the idea > of the board. > > May be we should discussed it publicly but this was really simple. > Here is the two emails. > > First email: > > "Now, I think we should also start thinking about how to manage Pharo > to not drift > into the same problems like with Squeak. I here primarily think about > decision making. > Who holds the keys and has the power to take final decisions? Do we > have a board and > if yes how does it constitute itself or is there just Stef as a > dictator ;) > (which may be just fine too)?" > > I said that I wanted to have a board (for the reasons I explained > above). > > Second email: > > Hi Mike, > > Stef, Marcus and I have been discussing about instantiating a board > for Pharo and thought about asking you to join. > The idea is that the board is not elected but works by "co-optation", > meaning the board decides who can join or not. > > It probably goes without saying that a board that can efficiently take > decisions is critical if we do not want to get into > a situation again where different interests block everything ;). > > I think at moment Stef is the "owner" of Pharo and he creates this > board now -- so this should not be understood > as an unfriendly act by the current participants. > > What do you think? > Adrian > > > > Now about the board members: > - Marcus knows much more than me about Smalltalk :) > - Mike is from industry and we share a common vision (iSqueak, > YSqueak...) > - Adrian is running business and academic, so Smalltalk is central > for him > > Now 4 is not a good number for taking decision so we will see, when we > will > need to fix that. > > I sincerly hope that you understand us. For me, it does not change > anything > to the vision, motivation..... This is just to protect ourselves because > we got burnt. Now we do not have have an internal mailing-list. > > Stef > > > 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 _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
