Personally I have to agree with you Stef.��

As a lawyer myself, keeping things separate is my number one rule when I work with legal cases and it is what I advice most of my clients doings. Remove any room for doubt.

Pharo has chosen to follow its own path. It does not even have the goal to be a Smalltalk evnironment and language but rather a Smalltalk inspired one as it is clearly stated on the front page of the website.��

So if Pharo is to be a separate entity entirely from smalltalk languages doing its own independent thing then it makes very good sense to me to have its own GSOC part. It also a very good idea from a management perspective, legal perspective, financial etc.
Keeping things separate will clear up also any confusion what Pharo is and what it stands for. ��No conspiracy theories and no suspicion. This already has worked very well in favor of Pharo, I don't see any problem with it.��

I also think because of Pharo popularity it would be more fair to smalltalk implementations. This way there will no feeling that Pharo takes too much of the pie.��


On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Pharo4Stef <pharo4Stef@free.fr> wrote:
Janko

in fact I'thinking about it may be this is the time to propose a Pharo specific GSOC program.
If they are enough people willing to do that we have an association with a real legal status ready for that.

:) thanks for giving us the idea.��

Stef

On 08 Feb 2014, at 11:34, Janko Miv��ek <janko.mivsek@eranova.si> wrote:

.. and of course my answer:

Dear Smalltalkers,

Stef is overreacting as always, going off-topic and don't want to see
the real reasons behind this proposal. Which is to make GSoC attractive
to all Smalltalkers by removing the last doubt about the any bias
towards any Smalltalk or group. That's why I propose to go more
independent under new name 'Smalltalk', besides a clearly better
visibility of such name of course.

I invite you to follow the debate on GSoC mentor list:

��https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/smalltalk-gsoc-mentors

All mentors with voting rights on past GSoCs please join back to this
mailing list and help with debate:

��https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/smalltalk-gsoc-mentors/join

Best regards
Janko


Dne 08. 02. 2014 10:53, pi��e Pharo4Stef:
I���m sorry to have to forward you this kind of mail but I do it.��
I will not send other emails on the topics.

Stef


Dear community

On the��smalltalk-gsoc-mentors@googlegroups.com
<mailto:smalltalk-gsoc-mentors@googlegroups.com> janko is kind of
declaring that ESUG was not doing a good job managing��
GSOC. We feel insulted and we are quite concerned by that fact.
Personally if students would not be involved I would vote that ESUG does
not have anything to do with GSOC. Because it costs us money, time and
stress. Note in addition that we never interferred with the choice or
anything.��

I will ask the ESUG board to decide because we cannot do the job, spend
time, money and be treated like that.
Sorry! We are sad but this is like that.

Then we do not like the kind of mails that Janko is sending us about the
fact that ESUG is biased towards Pharo.��
Where are the research teams and teachers? ��Of course: the mails of
janko are just so nice. I let you judge.

It is particularly fun since this year we (the pharo board) decided not
to organise a Pharo conference to avoid competing with ESUG.��

About motivations for my proposal:

1. 'Smalltalk' is more recognizable name on first spot that 'ESUG' .
And this matters when a student looks at around 150 GSoC organizations
to choose, which one to check and try. See last year list of orgs
<http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/org/list/public/google/gsoc2013>.

2. ESUG is currently regarded by many as too biased towards Pharo. Let
we avoid starting debating is this is true or not. Making our org more
independent will I hope remove any remaining doubt about that.


I feel shocked and insulted but I take it easy, having success make you
as easy target for jaleous people. This is strange that��
some people would prefer to have a non existing/moving open-source
smalltalk. May be the losers theory.

I added the answer of marcus below (because marcus usually is much
calmer than me) so that Janko succeeded to get marcus reacting like that
is a nice proof in itself.

Seriously Smalltalk is in a so good shape in presence of lua,
Javascript, ruby and python, clojure that we should fight.

Excellent idea thank for this nice initiative.��

Stef




Begin forwarded message:

*From: *Janko Miv��ek <janko.mivsek@gmail.com
<mailto:janko.mivsek@gmail.com>>
*Subject: **[gsoc-mentors] Running under 'Smalltalk' org. name*
*Date: *8 Feb 2014 08:46:18 GMT+1
*To: *smalltalk-gsoc-mentors@googlegroups.com
<mailto:smalltalk-gsoc-mentors@googlegroups.com>
*Reply-To: *smalltalk-gsoc-mentors@googlegroups.com
<mailto:smalltalk-gsoc-mentors@googlegroups.com>

Dear mentors,

I propose that we run this year GSoC simply under 'Smalltalk' name.
Mentoring organization will be us mentors of past and current GSoCs,
as the name 'mentoring organization' implies anyway. Such organization
therefore doesn't need to be some kind of legal entity.

Because I need to open a new website and we have only one week to
deadline, decision needs to be done soon.

Best regards
Janko

---
Janko Miv��ek
Smalltalk GSoC Admin Team

--��
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Smalltalk GSoC mentors" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to��smalltalk-gsoc-mentors+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
<mailto:smalltalk-gsoc-mentors+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



Of course you need it: I filled out quite some paperwork for Google.
ESUG is an official Google supplier, for that I filled american tax
forms and so on.

Without an organisation that will be very difficult. How do yu receive
money for the flight if someone goes to the meeting in the fall?

One of the reasons why the Smalltalk GSOC was accepted was I think that
it was the same organisation that is already in the books of google.

And I do not see why to change that: ESUG did a good job, we even lost
money (that is, we spend more money on additional Summer of Code slots
than got in with the money from google).
We payed all additional expenses of the people going to the Summit:
Google only pays the flight and hotel. Everyhting else not (e.g. going
from the airpot
to the hotel).


What we need to discuss this year is if additional slots make sense: We
had last year the fast that
a) it was very expensive for ESUG
b) even then, we got complaints that it was unfair that we did not pay
the same as google
c) that it was very extremely unfair that the student could not put
���Google Summer of Code��� on the CV.

The last is the Killer: money from ESUG is just money. GSoC is more. So
we ask if it is really worth to spend the money
if even the students are not happy about it.

And if your motivation behind is that this way you think it will be
easier to enable ���Quotas��� for different Smalltalks: ��I think this is a
dumb idea.

Yes, Pharo is very active. So could every other Smalltalk be, too. They
just need to do it. If they do not, it is not my duty to limit
my activity for ���Fairness���. Limiting the activity level of those who do
to be more ���in line��� with what those do who do nothing is just
*insane*. It���s a description of death itself.

Marcus


--��
Janko Miv��ek
Svetovalec za informatiko
Eranova d.o.o.
Ljubljana, Slovenija
www.eranova.si
tel: ��01 514 22 55
faks: 01 514 22 56
gsm: 031 674 565