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.