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.

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.

In the end, time will tell, but can you cite another successful open source project with such "model"?

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

Hern��n

��

cheers!

Esteban

On 24 Aug 2016, at 09:38, stepharo <stepharo@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.

Hern��n

2016-08-24 1:51 GMT-03:00 stepharo <stepharo@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