Hi, Thanks Stef for the reply. I completely concur.
@Hernán: About the issues with GT: please do get in touch. We have asked for it several times, and we are still here. If you have concrete issues, please raise them but focus on how to improve concretely. At the same time, also keep in mind that the overall decisions have to take into account other people’s constraints. That is why we need to iterate, and just because some requests do not make it, it does not mean that we do not care, but that we could not find a better solution to accommodate all wishes within the given time frame. We would certainly welcome help especially when that help aims to understand the full picture. The IDE is not a straightforward domain and we still have much to learn. Please, let’s work together and remember to have fun in the process :). Cheers, Doru > On Aug 25, 2016, at 8:48 AM, stepharo <steph...@free.fr> wrote: > > Hi hernan > Could you reply to my mail? Because what is important is how we can make > progres. > > About GT I have some concerns too now I see also a lot of improvements. I > love GTInspector and we should remove EyeInspector. > I want to have once brick is out another minimal environment not based on > anything so that we can have a back-door to debug when the other tools have a > problems. > Now some answers: >> >> >> Then it makes no sense raise any form of criticism, or the board, if by >> definition lobby groups silence any possible mistake. > No this is wrong. You can criticize as I criticize but you should give clear > actionable points. > Else this is Oh XX is bad. > Tell us how we can address your problems and we will try. > Without clear feedback we cannot act. > >> 2. Features that goes inside Pharo are not decided by vote. They have to add >> value and share the Pharo vision (pointed in the vision document who is not >> slightly updated but still guides our steps). We try to reach consensus and >> if it is not possible, then we decide. Yes, is like that… I’m >> sorry for not being perfect democratic but this was never the idea of >> Pharo (it *has* a benevolent dictator… who by the way is not me but a group, >> the board). >> >> >> Ok, now people can see one reason why Pharo is light years from the >> popularity of other OSS. I don't get how do you expect success with Pharo if >> you never change your mindset... I read a lot of papers and see KDE, gcc, >> Linux, NetBeans, Python, Mozilla, Apache collaboration models... never >> *ever* read something like that, specially now where OSS literature is >> considering distributed democracy. > Sorry but > - you would be surprised by how many people would vote to get GT tools > inside Pharo :) > - then I do not know what to tell you because I'm quite sure that Apache > or Mozilla are not managed by vote of people. > >> In the end, time will tell, but can you cite another successful open source >> project with such "model"? > Sorry I do not have the time to know. > We want an doit model: doing in things should be more important than suh > having needs (even if clients and users are important) >> 4. You have a very negative opinion about our design choices. That’s ok, but >> we are not going to remove GT just because you dislike it. >> >> It's not because of just my dislike. It's because it was never proposed for >> inclusion (it was just decided), it is because you make it almost impossible >> to uninstall it, and because it was integrated very early like an >> enhacement/future/vision set of tools without any votes, or high-resistance >> policy like many Open-Source projects, and judging by the volume of mails it >> required a lot of of time of beta-testing by many users. > You mean beside me someone was not really happy? > Seriously? > Now you can not use Spotter so I do not see the problem. > The Debugger is working well. > Playground looks like a default workspace. > Then GTInspector works perfectly for me. >> >> I would love to have the time to invite you, or any GT developer, to work >> with me just one week with real DNA data, and see how well GT goes... > > Please do a skype sharing session with Andrei and Doru. I'm sure that they > will love to do it. > So I take your words and urge you do it. > It will help you to get out your frsutration and I'm sure that GT will > improve. > So a clear win/win situation. >> >> Maybe I should be sorry for not being as obedient and blindly accepting all >> board decisions as the word of God, as many on this list. > Can you imagine one moment that people like it? > >> >> >> Understood, what makes me most sad is users almost accepted they cannot do >> better and if they do, their work will never be integrated by default. > No do better. > Why I started Spec when ther was Glamour. Why Alain was working on Calipso? > I would love that someone comes and tell me: take XX it is super hyper cool > UI Builder. > >> Instead, non-voters decisions discourages users to be rewarded for their >> creativity, and imposes many others to work free "supporting" tools which >> were imposed de facto. >> >> So again, I cannot stress this enough: Is my job to say no. I know I hurt >> some people but social development is complicated. >> I do not think I do a bad job :) >> >> >> Me neither, but you cannot expect conformity from all of us. >> >> Hernán >> >> >> cheers! >> Esteban >> >>> On 24 Aug 2016, at 09:38, stepharo <steph...@free.fr> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Hernan >>> >>> First thanks for your email because we may disagree but we often agree. :) >>> so this is an email for me. >>>> Hi Stef, >>>> >>>> Good communication implies being clear when writing about sensitive >>>> topics, especially when communicating through virtual channels. I am not >>>> in Europe, so I cannot discuss these things with you face to face. >>> This is what we want to change with montly videos meeting. >>>> Therefore is not clear to me (and others) what are your policies in many >>>> subjects. Lately I also delayed the release of packages because my lack of >>>> motivation around this community, specially when discussions exists around >>>> three or fourth topics for months. >>> >>> Like what? >>> Let us know because we do not >>>> Another "motivational" case for me. I stopped to report bugs in fogbuz >>>> because I felt there was too much "Won't fix" for me (specifically by a >>>> person but I won't go there...) even in cases where it was ilogical. Then >>>> I felt tired of reading "It's like that. Invalid". >>> This is a pity. >>> I know the feeling because some of mine are close too. You are not the only >>> victim of the "Issue closing syndrom" ;). >>> And I would like the syndrome to be more human friendly. Thanks for raising >>> this point. >>> >>> Now two points >>> - You should always send a mail to the mailing-list and that we discuss >>> your points. >>> >>> - Now what will happen if we all open bugs and none of us works on the >>> open bugs. >>> So what is the solution for you. I mean it concretely. How to deal with >>> dying >>> >>> Looking at bugs is really difficult. There are not enough people looking >>> and fixing bugs. >>> >>>> About features. >>>> >>>> What's the policy about voting for default features in next Pharo images? >>>> Let's suppose I am a VM/core Pharo maintainer and I want to include >>>> MySuperPackage into a Pharo release, which nobody needs (and I don't >>>> care), but it is useful to me.... there will ever be voting there? (note >>>> it doesn't makes sense if you are a group of 50 always supporting your >>>> work) >>> >>> It does not really work because engineers are paid for certain task. >>>> Images are becoming huge (at least for my workflows). There will be (more) >>>> packages included by default (for promotion?) ? >>> Thanks to raise this point because I mentioned it also to the board. So I >>> like when I'm not alone. >>> Now we should not see look only at the size. Doing nothing is size zero :) >>> The point is what are the functionalities delivered. >>> >>> Three points: >>> - what are the key things we want? >>> keybinding, settings, cool inspector cool.... >>> >>> - how many duplicated functionality can we remove: >>> for example I want to merge MCDefinitions with Ring with >>> RBDefinition >>> we removed pseudo* >>> but this is a lot of work >>> >>> The goal is to throw many system when bloc and brick are ready >>> >>> - what is the list of things that you would remove? >>> >>> - with the bootstrap and all the packages of the image managed with >>> Cargo plus the git management >>> we believe that we will be able to manage a set of images with minimal >>> images. >>> - this is several years that we are working on this goal. >>> Believe me this is the vision document not for the sake of it. >>> >>>> How do you plan to manage if some people want the Tests be removed from >>>> the official Image? (Personally I never run them) >>> - then you use a jenkins job to produce your image where you unload the >>> tests. >>> >>>> Another example, what happens if another research group came with a better >>>> alternative to Calypso, Brick, Telescope, Bloc. Would you integrate first >>>> your tool to mark territory? >>> >>> No this is not a question of territory. Doru and GT does not do that in >>> that spirit. >>> RMOD too. We do something when we think that this is better. >>> For example Epicea is three years of work of Martin, Fuel was so nice >>> that we could not lose it. >>> You see Ghost got changed by denis, Seamless got rewritten from >>> scratch. >>> >>>> Who decides? For example (IIRC) TxText and Twisty. >>> Igor looked at Twisty seriously and I do not think that it could handle >>> large cobol files. >>> >>> (you see funnily denis is doing the same with Seamless - He rewrote it >>> from scratch while >>> nick worked on it for several years). >>> >>> Igor wanted to have a stream-based API that could work on modern >>> command-oriented videos card framework. >>> My team (on our own money if you understand what it means) >>> paid Igor to build TxText (and I can tell you that I would have >>> prefered him to do something else). >>> >>> >>>> The same applies if anyone came with another rewrite of classic Smalltalk >>>> Workspace, Debugger and Inspector tools, what would you do with GT? GT >>>> stays because it came before and others would be optional? >>> No this is not like that. >>> If you are better or answer better needs. >>> >>>> There will be anything like PEPs? >>> I would love but will people have the energy to implement them? >>> I would definitively encourage you as a community to raise points on >>> what you need. >>> >>>> If someone can answer me I think that would be an example of good >>>> communication. >>> Hernan I always answered your emails. I always consider your work (and >>> you know it for other reasons and by my facts) after I'm not always in >>> agreement as I'm not always in agreement with other board members and this >>> is how live happens. >>> What is clear is that the most important aspects is to continue to >>> communicate. This is why the board is launching >>> this initiative and I would love to see it taken by people even for >>> their projects. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Hernán >>>> >>>> >>>> 2016-08-24 1:51 GMT-03:00 stepharo <steph...@free.fr>: >>>> Hi guys >>>> >>>> the board got a good discussion at ESUG about how to improve and a lot of >>>> the discussion turned around improving communication. We got some ideas >>>> that we will propose soon but I would like to get *your* ideas. >>>> >>>> If you have idea about improving communication around pharo please tell us. >>>> >>>> >>>> Stef >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > -- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "Every successful trip needs a suitable vehicle."
