Squeak
  links to this page:    
View this PageEdit this Page (locked)Uploads to this PageHistory of this PageTop of the SwikiRecent ChangesSearch the SwikiHelp Guide
Election 2008 Q&A
Last updated at 9:38 am UTC on 7 March 2008
Below follow 10 hopefully reasonably formulated questions written by the Election leader, me, Göran Krampe together with a few people on IRC that happened to be online and helpful :) As such they can be biased, but we have tried to make each question stand on its own.

Note:

1. Approximately, how much time do you plan on spending on Squeak during the coming year (in any kind of unit)?


Bert Freudenberg:

I work with Squeak full-time, on OLPC-Etoys, sponsored by VPRI. On top of that I usually find a few hours a week to work in the Squeak community, mostly doing email and sometimes even IRC. And I attended most board meetings last year :)

Yoshiki Ohshima:

I will be still spending some chunk of my time constantly on the development of OLPC Etoys. Also, for making prototypes of new UI and end-user application, I'll be using Squeak (probably the OLPC Etoys image). In the longer term, though, VPRI trys to roll out new system that are not based on Squeak. I'll be working on these projects.

Craig Latta:

I plan to spend Mondays on Squeak for the indefinite future (I was able to start doing this in mid-February 2008). A year of weekly eight-hour days is about 400 hours, or about ten full-time weeks. The work I do for my primary client the rest of each week is also with Squeak, so there may be some overlap there.

Tim Rowledge:

I'm fortunate in that my work situation allows me to work at home doing pretty much as I please with my time. This means I can spend time on Squeak when I have something useful to do and nothing more urgent claims my attention. I'd hazard a guess that it might average out to a day a week.

Andrew P. Black:

A fair bit, but focused on my teaching and writing new chapters for a successor to the Squeak book. That means a couple of hours per week, which may go up to a day per week if I'm teaching with Squeak. But that's not time that in which I can do what I want; my "free" time is going to be limited. I don't even have time to read this list regularly any more. I have been a pretty regular attendee at board meetings, and will keep that up if re-elected.

Matthew Fulmer:

I am currently spending 1-2 hours per day in hobby work for squeak, and 3-5 hours per day on weekends. That would include my board work. I can keep up this schedule at least until August 2008, when I start grad school.

Igor Stasenko:

It's hard to say. Currently i'm spending all my time on Squeak. Things may change, of course. But i think, at least 2 hours per day i'll spend on Squeak in any case.

Tansel Ersavas:

I actually make my living through Squeak so all my working time is spent on Squeak (except a few odd dlls).

Giovanni Corriga:

I recently moved to London, so I still have to settle down properly. But I think I'll be able to reserve at least 12-15 hours per week (maybe split between workday evenings and weekend afternoons). This would be in addition to the time I'd dedicate to the foundation in case I'll be elected. I also plan to do a lot of Smalltalk advocacy (obviously using Squeak as a prime example!).

Edgar J. De Cleene:

About 3 hours each day, as average.

Randal L. Schwartz:

My company is concentrating this year on building a presence in the Smalltalk world, mostly through the promotion of cross-platform web frameworks such as Seaside. This goal requires that I create and deliver talks, courses, blog entries, and publications on Smalltalk-related items in a major way. I see Squeak as an essential component of that effort, and will be spending at least one or two days a week completely immersed in understanding Squeak code, writing Squeak code for the core and for separate packages, and writing about Squeak.

Dan Ingalls:

In the conventional sense of "on Squeak", probably around two hours a week, plus occasional chunks of solid do-what-it-takes time. In this sense I shouldn't be competing for slots where there's a real need for time commitment. i have no attachment to how this comes out.

2. What are in your mind the three most important issues (not necessarily technical) we need to address in the coming year?


Bert Freudenberg:

Release management, licensing, and incorporating.

Yoshiki Ohshima:

Giving somebody(s) the authority of making technical dicisions would be important to move the community.

Craig Latta:


Tim Rowledge:

a) finish the relicensing effort so it is finally complete, done, finito, out of the way, never to be let into the light of day again.
b) get the membership of the SFLC completed so we have a safe 'home' and banking setup for the future
c) make the commitment to start on a new base image, taking what is good, dumping anything below par, with actual design discussions, documentation and comments

Andrew P. Black:

I think that moving forward means getting us an equivalent of Linus. Dan Ingalls played that role for many years: he gave Squeak a conceptual coherence. Getting to that point will require some money, and raising money will require getting the licensing situation cleaned-up. So I'm with Tim, Bert, Craig, Igor, Randal and others that we have to start with licensing.

Matthew Fulmer:

  1. establish forums for the sharing of code and ideas between our various sub-groups
  2. establish a spec for the release
  3. finish the relicense

See my platform article for details: http://people.squeakfoundation.org/article/81.html

Igor Stasenko:

Besides licensing. We should think about making community more organized, in terms of better communication and cooperation.

Tansel Ersavas:

Three? Why stop at 3?

I am very happy to see Dan stepping in and I would like to see why we lost some major contributors of the past. It would be injustice to state some names here but at first glance some people that immediately come to my mind are some Squeak-Central folk, Bob Arning, Ned Konz, Jim Benson, a lot of the individuals from the great Argentina group that were with us from the beginning, other heavyweights such as Dave Thomas, Andrew Greenberg, and many other people that drifted away or we lost contact with. One aim is to attract/re-attract and maintain such people in the community.

Related to the same topic there are some amazing projects that were done and faded through. Morphic Wrappers and MathMorphs were great examples. Anything Takashi-san makes, like Language-Game were incredible.

I see licensing as a very important issue that needs to be resolved.

Also:


Giovanni Corriga:

In my opinion, the Squeak community is currently lacking two things: a clear vision of what Squeak should be and a proper development process to turn this vision into reality. The foundation board shouldn't be the one to provide such things, but instead it should be the catalyzer that allows the community to reach such targets.
Aside from that, moving to a much smaller core system would be beneficial, too (but we all know that).

Edgar J. De Cleene:

Put end to forever licesing issues. Community is more as exchanging code, I don´t see this
in Squeak, try to push SqueakRos model.

Randal L. Schwartz:


Dan Ingalls:

In many cases the purpose of an organization is survival of the organization. To me the question before issues is what are we trying to save, and to create? When I step back from it all (and I have ;-) the most critical thing to save is the vitality of this community.
And my sense of what has fed that is a subtle combination of mathematical cleverness, immersion in media (and other real effects) and joy of creativity. We've always nourished a tool that is second to none in productivity, and we've always been fed in return by all the fun things that are possible. The question was specific, so...

3. What is your view on fund raising and how any such collected money should be dealt with?


Bert Freudenberg:

Making Squeak attractive for professional use is necessary to raise funding. In turn, the money should primarily be used to sponsor developers improving the core and tools.

Yoshiki Ohshima:

For small chunks, simple donations from individuals members in the community would be good. But honestly I don't see some entity that offers bigger funding toward Squeak itself. There will be funding for projects that may use Squeak, but only if these projects are attractive.

Craig Latta:

I think we should be receiving tax-exempt donations (see previous answer). The elected leadership should decide how to spend all such money, reporting all expenditures to the community and delegating spending decisions as it sees fit (e.g., it may decide to allocate some money to a team with its own reported budget).

Tim Rowledge:

I'm in two minds on the issue. I have no experience on fund raising whatsoever and, like Dan, have benefited throughout my life from a gentle rainfall of money from mysterious forces above. I'm not sure that a squeak foundation needs much in the way of fund raising to operate perfectly well; enough to keep servers alive etc is plenty for that. However, if there is a practical way to raise large amounts of money for specific projects then one could imagine plans that would take many millions of dollars. I'm good at spending large amounts of money.

Andrew P. Black:

As Randal says, needs must be identified before one can try to raise money to meet them. The two main sources will be foundations and companies. Money is out there if we can paint a vision of where we want to go. Unfortunately, getting the image cleaned up and our processes organized are not fundable activities. Developing a concurrent Smalltalk, for example, might be: I mean a parallel VM and an enhanced language with real concurrency primitives (I don't count Semaphores!)

Matthew Fulmer:

I've never dealt with fund raising. I would say we should hire someone full-time to work on the release.

Igor Stasenko:

A money donated to SqF should serve for the community benefit. I think, it would be good to make addressed help to developers of most awaited products or most awaited enhancements. A community by own can decide which project should receive a grant: we can set-up a monthly survey, and community members can give own voice for the project they think need some monetary support. In that way, SqF can help with raising peoples motivation.

Tansel Ersavas:

We need to look at the models of similar non-profit organizations and learn from their ways of attracting funds.
One good way of obtaining funds is through donations/sponsorship from corporations. Making Squeak commercially strong is a good way to motivate corporations to donate generously. It is great to see some very strong projects with very good prospects in this area.

I am impressed with ESUG's abilities to organize events, and raise money and support. We have a few things to learn from them and team up with them more often.

When it comes to how this money should be proportioned, the board should have the flexibility to use the money in ways its collective wisdom dictates. Squeak is a very innovative system so should the raising and usage of funds.

Giovanni Corriga:

Fund raising should be done with a precise purpose in mind. Aside from keeping enough to cover the costs for our infrastructure for at least one more year, we should employ the money we have to make Squeak better.
Activities such as SummerTalk or a bounties would be good for Squeak, too (witness what happened with the Curl plugin, just to make an example).

Edgar J. De Cleene:

I lack experience in this area.

Randal L. Schwartz:

Needs should be identified before money requests are made. Funding a specific project always results in a far more receptive audience. Heck, as Stonehenge, I've contributed some major cash to specific projects, and very little to "general funds". I've founded a few non-profits over the years, including launching short-lived Perl Institute and the follow-on PerlMongers, and have been involved peripherally with the Perl Foundation. I also have worked with 18 of the Fortune 100, so I have a pretty clear idea about how corps want to deal with outside non-profit organizations.

Dan Ingalls:

Sadly, this is not my strength. I am bad with money. My strength is a certain grounded cleverness that produces things of value. Fortunately, this has caused enough money to fall from the sky to keep me going. My approach to fund raising for Squeak would be pretty much the same perspective. I can lend a name that is known, but if you want a good fund-raiser, you need someone else in addition.

4. What is your view on the ongoing process of making SqueakFoundation a not-for-profit legal entity?


Bert Freudenberg:

It's going slower than we (or I) hoped. Still, I think the Software Freedom Conservancy is our best option because we lack the man power to incorporate independently. Finishing this requires a fully relicensed release.

Yoshiki Ohshima:

It is making progress and I hope it goes through. At the same time, even if it doesn't go through, that wouldn't be a disaster. It is people's willingness that drives the community.

Craig Latta:

What the leadership elected in 2007 is attempting is membership for the Squeak project in the Software Freedom Conservancy. The Conservancy will be the legal entity, but the Squeak project will gain many of the benefits of that status (please see the Conservancy's website[1] for details).

I think being able to receive tax-exempt donations is vital to our goals as a community. With it we can pursue development, documentation, and advocacy far more effectively. Conservancy membership remains our best option for being able to receive tax-exempt donations.

There is a stark tradeoff here between waiting and spending money. Joining the Conservancy is taking so long because our membership is contingent upon a Squeak release composed only of appropriately-licensed content. This requires obtaining license agreements from many contributors. While establishing an independent entity might lessen that burden, it would require personal investments of time and money that we are not willing to make.

Tim Rowledge:

It's been slow and somewhat painful but that is what happens when you are depending upon the unpaid work of a few people at both ends of the process. We're getting there, it should be continued and completed. Everyone owes Craig a big thank-you for his work on this, by the way.

Andrew P. Black:

Craig has done the lion's share of the work here, and deserves a lot of the credit. He has summarized the situation nicely. We've been pickup up a lot of downed logs and finding some creepy crawly critters under them, and the "clean" version of Squeak may not be as full of features as we had once hoped, but I think that we will get there.

Matthew Fulmer:

I don't really get the point, but it seems like a good idea to smarter people than I, so I'm all for it. Maybe I'll understand it more once it is done.

Igor Stasenko:

I think it's a right choice to become a legal entity. This will add more weight to foundation itself and to community. I see a SqueakFoundation as well respected and well known entity which serves in best interests of squeak community: helping members and protecting their rights.

Tansel Ersavas:

I think the current board did what they can to continue the process, it is a slow one and it is coming to a point we'll start reaping the benefits. Squeak needs a strong organization and a strong legal base besides a strong community behind to eliminate or minimize concerns of people and organizations considering adopting it.

By the same token I don't want the Foundation a total dictator which will discourage forks. Some of the most innovative things will come from so called "forks". I see Squeak as a family that covers all its varieties from Spoon to Tweak to Morphic 3.0.

Giovanni Corriga:

I'm quite happy with how the current board has managed the process. The next board such continue steadily on the same path.

Edgar J. De Cleene:

Bravo for until to date work!

Randal L. Schwartz:

SqF should not be a separate charitable organization... it takes far too much time and effort to do that, for very little gain. SqF should be under some umbrella organization that can handle individual donations. However, SqF should get (or continue to maintain) legal designation as a "non-profit", which allows certain donations from corporations to be received directly. And this will be necessary for project-based contributions (see #3).

Dan Ingalls:

If we're going to have an organization, then this is the right approach. Again, sadly, it's not my strength, but I certainly
support this effort.

5. Do you think the Team model is appropriate for organising our efforts or should we come up with something else?


Bert Freudenberg:

The "non-developer" teams like the box admins or the news teams work great. For development itself and for the release it has not worked out so well. OTOH I cannot think of a better model so I'd attribute the shortcomings simply to a lack of time.

Yoshiki Ohshima:

Team would work better if there is still a leader.

Craig Latta:

I do think the team model is appropriate. It's simple and clear, and works to the extent that the participants have time to spend. No rearrangement of policy is going to create free time for anyone (sadly :). If we're not meeting our goals for a role, then people who think they can do a better job need to volunteer. I think that's simply the nature of volunteer work.

Tim Rowledge:

Teams are the only way anything gets done. Occasionally it's a team of one but normally I claim you need someone with the drive and idea and at least one other that has the patience, doggedness and sheer bloody-mindedness to not let things drift or stop. Given that people like that will get on and do things anyway, how can it not be smart to accept the world and work with it? One problem I see is that we currently have a lot of people with ideas in particular areas but few with really broad scope; that was/is I think one of the important qualities of Alan Kay that helped to make Smalltalk possible in the first place.

Andrew P. Black:

Teams are the only way that things get done. That said, the release team has become a point of contention. The fault is not with the team members, but with the process. It reminds me of when I worked for Digital: one day someone observed that no one had ever managed two releases of VMS. Sometimes the release manager quit the company, sometimes they had a nervous breakdown, sometimes they just refused to ever do it again. I think that one release team leader may have even committed suicide.

XP teams avoid the stress and work of doing a release by releasing all the time. One of my frustrations with Squeak is the enormous amount of work required to get a fix or enhancement into the release—and I'm not talking about the programming and the testing. So, I think the problem is not so much with the teams, but with the task that we ask some of the teams to undertake. If the process requires super-human effort, we can either look for super-humans to undertake it, or we can change the process.

Matthew Fulmer:

I said in my article, I think the team model is very good, but it suffers from idealism: We haven't yet seen a successful, organized team that can act as a role-model for how the rest of the teams should work. Bootstrapping a successful release team should be a top priority of the board's, for two reasons:


Igor Stasenko:

Team, is a group of enthusiasts which joining efforts on some task. Since all of them are volunteers, and since people's interests may change very fast (in a couple of months), it's really hard to push task to finish line with same team as it was started. Also, most of us don't like to be ashamed being known as someone who
started something and never finished it. In general, team model is good, but we need some people spending time
to oversee project activities and provide help in case if it's being stuck.
Also, addressed help may be an option to motivate people join team(s).

Tansel Ersavas:

Teams do work to the extent that they can be more than the sum of the individuals. In certain areas we certainly need teams, efforts such as the current re-licensing effort. But actual power of Squeak is making individual all powerful again. So I say do not underestimate the individual.

Giovanni Corriga:

The team model has proven quite successful in cases such as box-admins, webteam, news, etc. It needs to be improved for other kinds of teams, such as the Squeak release team. Having the board requiring a higher level of communication from such teams would probably be a good improvement.

Edgar J. De Cleene:

I write on how I view Teams, with the Ferrari model. I think the closest to me is Mario Almondo who went
from lecturer to Technical Director.
http://www.shell.com/home/content/ferrari-en/formula_one_2007/2007_biographies/mario_almondo/biography/biography.html

Randal L. Schwartz:

According to the Screen Director's Guild, a movie has always only one director. That's because, ultimately, there will be lower level conflicts, and it takes arbitration to resolve it ultimately, and this is the Director's role. The director also always holds the "vision" of the entire project, and can communicate that as needed.

In this case, Squeak needs a "benevolent dictator" to make the ultimate choices, but will most certainly delegate most of the actual work to trustable lieutenants. Squeak-by-committee will stagnate and be equally useless to everyone. I don't see the Dictator role as a permanent one, but it's definitely a necessary role, and should be filled. In the Perl world, Larry Wall is the ultimate "BD", but every Perl release has a "Pumpking", which has very clear authority to resolve any issues as they see fit. Squeak needs this.

Dan Ingalls:

We always had a team when I was involved. But it wasn't because having a team was the goal. We had a mission that was, by the way, not Squeak. It was to bring the joy of mathematics and media to life (for kids (of all ages)). We had the good fortune that Alan campaigned for this mission, and that we assembled a crew that could pull it off with very little resources (on the scale of Microsoft and Google).

To come back to the question, though, it feel split when I read it:
There's organizing, and there's doing. I'd like to figure out some way to leverage the stakeholders (to anticipate #6). It would be nice to work more closely with them, feed their energy back into the community, maybe organize some of the community around supporting them in various ways. They are already Squeak teams, and they're doing some great work.

6. Do you have any specific views on how the Squeak board and the Squeak community should work together with the Squeak satellite communities (Croquet, Seaside, Sophie, Squeakland, Scratch etc), also referred to as "stakeholder communities"?


Bert Freudenberg:

Having a stable core release would benefit these communities - so that's what we need to focus on. Communication does happen through individuals from these communities here on squeak-dev, and for the time being I do not see the need for a more formal approach.

Yoshiki Ohshima:

Share the contributions and insights. Something like DeltaStream, which increases the visibility of other people's patches and let us cherry pick them would be good.

I don't see a real merging effort of them will happen, though. I wouldn't even think about such effort with the OLPC Etoys image and the mainstream image.

Craig Latta:

These groups should communicate their desires and constraints to each other early and often.

Tim Rowledge:

Only that stakeholders must work together if they want to benefit. "United we run, divided we SIGHALT", or something like that. We must fight back the ravening hordes of java-weenies, rubettes, perly-queens, CLOSeted lispers etc.

Andrew P. Black:

I see that our role is having a stable release that keeps getting better all the time. I don't mean more features: I mean more stability, more reliability, fewer bugs, and better programming tools. And mechanisms that make it easy for the stakeholders to migrate to the next, better, Squeak, rather that making things so difficult for them that they say: "my project is based on Squeak 3.8, and it ain't gonna move", because each time that I move, it costs me bigtime.

Matthew Fulmer:

I think the release team should package up bug fixes for all the forks of squeak, letting them know we don't consider them "second class citizens" as opposed to squeak.org and squeak-dev.

Andreas and Yoshiki have both said that a merger would be a bad idea, so, let's stop pressing the idea of relocating them on top of a minimal image. It ain't gonna happen. Let's build roads, not move mountains.

Igor Stasenko:

Obviously, we should collaborate and exchange ideas and common improvements. The main problem which standing before fruitful exchange, is the lack of tools and lack of modularity.
So, the primary goal of the board in next years, should be to make these tools available, which should help a lot in sharing code between communities.

Tansel Ersavas:

As I commented above I see us all a part of a bigger family. Certainly as much cross communication as possible. For instance efforts in preparing Sophie as an application are relevant to most of us.

Giovanni Corriga:

I think the various stakeholder communities have diverged so much that they should be considered on par with the main Squeak community. Moving to a system of relationships inspired by the Linux distros and how they collaborate/compete with each other would be very good for everyone involved.

Edgar J. De Cleene:

Maybe take the Serge suggestion on do one "reunification" long talk in ESUG between all
developers, face to face.

Randal L. Schwartz:

Clearly, each of these communities has separate needs and desires. They should be willing to provide their part of the puzzle, but the Squeak core must provide the basic mechanisms and extension paths to support the majority of these communities.

Dan Ingalls:

I think these stakeholders are the key to Squeak's future – more than Squeak itself. These are where "the rubber meets the road" – ie where Squeak's power and leverage create effects and artifacts in the world, that bring attention, people, ideas and resources back into the community. Step one would be to ask them how we could most effectively give energy to them and bring it back to the community at large.

7. The squeak.org release is our most important asset. How do you see it evolving over the next few years?


Bert Freudenberg:

It needs to become more modular. We need a stable core that other projects can rely on, which should be evolved with caution (we need to establish a decision process for that). And a core release should come with (gasp!) documentation.

Yoshiki Ohshima:

For various reasons such as licensing and people's feeling toward minimum systems, I'd think that we would have two systems. One is based on a kind of small system that remotely related to current "Squeak". And another is maintenance versions of current image(s). The former should have cleaner license, but I think it is ok to distribute the latter even if some people think that the license is murky.

Craig Latta:

The release is our most important artifact, but the community itself is our most important asset. At any rate, I see the release moving to a clearly minimal kernel with a system for extension while maintaining modularity. I see the behavior we're using now organized into intelligible modules, and flexibly loadable from local or remote
peers. I see a system which a newcomer can start exploring and reusing immediately, experiencing competency in a day.

Tim Rowledge:

I disagree with both ends of that sentence. I think the community of skilled and involved people is the great asset and I want to see the software system go through revolution, not evolution. Software might be the only place in the universe where 'Intelligent Design' has any validity.

Andrew P. Black:

Craig and Tim have already pointed out that the community, not the release, is our greatest asset. Look at the discussion on squeak-dev, and compare it with almost any other internet community! I disagree with Tim, though: we don't need revolution. We do need to decide where to go, but we will get there by gradual change, not by burning the disk packs and starting over. Nevertheless, when we are done, none of the original code may be left!

I think that my most important contribution recently has been the work that I did with Oscar, Stéphan, Damien et al on the book "Squeak by Example". If we are going to gain mindshare, we have to create a path for newbies to get into Squeak. It has to be easy to start developing, which means that the tools have to work, and that there has to be documentation. My greatest frustrations in writing the book were the following. First, that I didn't know what I could assume was in the image that the reader was using! The "standard" release didn't have most of the development tools that I needed, and those that were there mostly didn't work. We even had trouble amongst ourselves (the authors) deciding on which version to use, and when to go back and revise a chapter because the image had been revised.

My second frustration was that once I found a bug — and it might be a trivial bug, like a tool being called one thing in a menu, a different thing in a flap, and a third thing in the code — it was impossible for me to fix it. Documenting a system shows up bugs like this, because you have to explain them to the reader. It's faster and better to just fix them! But only if it's possible to release the fix into the common code base with one click. A squeak.org release that fixes these frustrations would make me very happy.

Matthew Fulmer:

I don't see it evolving at all unless we write a spec on what it should look like in the future, then make a schedule on how to
get there.

Igor Stasenko:

In order of priority:

Tansel Ersavas:

It may be so at the moment but instead of focusing just squeak.org which should be more end user content manageable we need to create more assets.

Giovanni Corriga:

I think it's time we start thinking about moving to a 4.x release series. This would allow Squeak to do a giant leap, by dropping all the unused stuff that has stockpiled inside the current image (as an example, Environments) or solving some of the current shortcomings such as the format of the CompiledMethods.

Edgar J. De Cleene:

I email to list several times my views.
Going smaller, going modular, give users freedom to choose, give newcomers less headaches

Randal L. Schwartz:

I'd like to see something like Perlmonks erupt somewhere. It's an amazing asset. "Squeakmonks" would not be a replacement for mailing lists and newsgroups, but a good google-viewed database of questions and answers and
corrected answers, with some incentive to provide correct answers, would be very useful to the Squeak community. Most of what I know about Squeak I got from folklore... it'd be nice if that folklore could be passed on in a googleable way.

Dan Ingalls:

I disagree that this is our most important asset. Our most important asset is our cleverness and our joy in this pursuit that has kept us together through years of little pay and little acceptance in the world.

The Squeak release is a great asset, it's true, and it's certainly worth some strategizing on how to make the most of it and take it forward into the future. This is an area I'd like to which I would enjoy contributing. So you can know, my intuition of the important challenges and opportunities in, say, the next 10 years are


8. Do you have any thoughts on the current relicensing effort?


Bert Freudenberg:

It is sad that we even have to deal with that - or does anyone seriously believe there is code in the image that was not intended to be free? Unfortunately, we have to be afraid of malicious lawyers, so we have to see this through whatever it takes. I'll be glad when it's done.

Yoshiki Ohshima:

I personally think that the license issue is overrated in the open source software community. Anybody can sue anybody after all for anything, so there is no way to achieve "100%" cleanness in this world. Nonetheless, we should try to do some "reasonable effort" to relicensing. And, like the Japanese versions and other languages version of Squeak and Squeakland, people wouldn't stop using, and that wouldn't be a problem.

Craig Latta:

It is well worth finishing, and I'll be very glad when it's done.

Tim Rowledge:

See 4 above. We do still have a problem with establishing that work coming from Disney & HP actually acceptable to the SFLC legal team. Lawyers like paper.

Andrew P. Black:

I've never been very exited about licenses, but that's because neither I nor my employer have any money, so we aren't worth suing. In the real world, we just have to make the relicensing happen: it has taken almost all of the board's time over the last year, and will take more. Kudos to Craig, who has done the lion's share.

Matthew Fulmer:

I'm glad Craig made all the effort he has on that front and left so little for us to do. Thank you Craig.

Finishing this effort will require the creation of an organized release team to carry out the kernel audit and rewrite.

Igor Stasenko:

I think it should be finished as soon as possible, to not constrain us anymore.

Tansel Ersavas:

A giant effort definitely worth completing!

Giovanni Corriga:

I wish it could go faster, but I'm not so naive that I don't realize how complex this things are. I'm also quite happy with the fact that the new licence can be understand by anyone in under minute.

Edgar J. De Cleene:

Again, another bravo, this time to Craig.

Randal L. Schwartz:

It's mandatory. And for my purposes, it's mandatory that it be licensed with an MIT or BSD style license, so that my customers can continue to develop applications in Squeak and deploy it in commercial environments that would be perhaps open-source hostile.

Dan Ingalls:

It was always the model we worked with, and it's only an accident that everything isn't free and clear. It would be a huge release of energy to complete this, so I am willing to work at it, even though, again, this is not my strength (except maybe as a "persuader").

9. How would you like Squeak to be positioned in the open source world in year 2012?


Bert Freudenberg:

It should be known as an easy-to-learn yet very powerful programming environment.

Yoshiki Ohshima:

An honest answer is that something much better comes out from the project at VPRI and the many members of Squeak community move on to it.

Craig Latta:

I'll be very happy if the open-source world sees Squeak as a familiar, reasonable alternative for software projects of any size.

Tim Rowledge:

I don't give stuff about 'the open source world'. That's as meaningless to me as 'where would I like squeak to be positioned in the christian world'.

Andrew P. Black:

My interest in Squeak is in propagating the Smalltalk programming style. This would be easier if Squeak were perceived as being useful for "real" applications. Students do program better in Squeak than in Java, but it's hard to get them to want to try to learn Squeak, because they think that Java is "real", and Squeak is "a toy". Seaside is a great step in the right direction. A framework that makes it easy to build a shrinkwrapped app would be another great step. A framework that make Squeak a viable scripting language, maybe combining some of the ideas from F-script with real programmability (new classes, subclases and methods). Any of these has the potential to turn Squeak into a better Ruby.

Matthew Fulmer:

Randal and Seaside are bringing in developers, and if we get a good release ready for them before they arrive en masse, we could really make Squeak a respectable system.

If not, we will still continue to be one of the best education tools that the world has ever seen.

Igor Stasenko:

As a modern platform for creating applications, authoring and modeling. And as best platform for experimenting and inventing.

Tansel Ersavas:

I'd like to see Squeak and Squeak based systems to be seen as the "Benchmark" of the systems that other systems are measured against.

Giovanni Corriga:

I'd love to see Squeak be considered on the same level as other languages such as Python, Ruby or Erlang.

Edgar J. De Cleene:

Better as now and worst as 2013!
Starting from small intelligent core, Squeak 2012 could do all for children from 5 to 105.

Randal L. Schwartz:

If my efforts are fruitful, RubyOnRails will be gone. Everyone will be using Seaside or Aida or the nextgen of that. :)

Dan Ingalls:
I'm not sure how to answer this. I'd like it to be viewed as (and to actually be) totally free. I'd also like it to be one of the most vibrant communities in the computer world. To do this, though, Squeak will need to change, but I don't think the Squeak spirit needs to change a lot.

10. What do you see as the overall role of the board?


Bert Freudenberg:

It should coordinate and lead the community, as well as represent the community to the outside.

Yoshiki Ohshima:

Sometimes being at the Viewpoints helps, and knowing the POV of other language communities such as the largeer Japanese Squeak community helps.

Craig Latta:

The Squeak leadership should represent the project to the Conservancy, act as the authoritative decision-making body for the community, and delegate responsibility to capable and motivated participants who can commit the necessary time.

Tim Rowledge:

Right now, trying to make a proper legal and operational foundation. Later, using that to provide support for the real work - making better software.

Andrew P. Black:

I think that the board should be more active in providing technical leadership. We have had a very "hands off" approach over the last year, focussing more on licensing. Of course, the community may not want to follow where the board leads. That's effectively a vote of no confidence: it means that you elect a new board.

Beyond that, the board has to raise money to make the vision real.

Matthew Fulmer:

To make the decisions nobody wants to make, and take the blame.

Igor Stasenko:

Organizational, promotional, helpful to community.

Tansel Ersavas:

The board needs to determine and work on technical, tactical and long term strategic goals. I currently see most of the technical and some tactical decisions. What I would like to see the board to act as a visionary also. Squeak is created on the Blue Plane but it currently mostly resides on the Pink Plane ;). However as far as I can see Squeak is the only tool around (with possible exception if Ian's fizzy stuff!!) with a built in mechanism to evolve to the next best thing.

Giovanni Corriga:

The board should coordinate the Squeak community and should do what's necessary to enable it to reach its targets.

Edgar J. De Cleene:

Give presence messages to all list.

Randal L. Schwartz:

Leadership. This means listening to the needs, and finding ways to get the problems out of the way, so that the contributors can get their job done. It also means advocacy and marketing, so that Squeak is seen as a viable choice for projects.

Dan Ingalls:

In the early days of Squeak we had no board. Squeak Central operated out of its own convictions, and this delightful community formed around that activity. The need for a board arose when that situation changed, and I'd be inclined to reflect on that earlier chemistry and interplay to understand the best role for the board. To me this goes back to my comments on #6.

I tried not to look at any of the other statements, but I did see a response to something Yoshiki said. And I'm on his side. It could be that the most important role of the board in the next few years is to guide us as a community through significant changes in our language and our image (in both senses of the word ;-).


NOTE: This next question was added late but I include it anyway. Some candidates have missed answering it. If answers are made on squeak-dev I am adding them as I discover them.

11. What actions would you take to promote Squeak as an environment for professional software development?


Bert Freudenberg:

Again, having a rock-solid core for professional development will attract developers, and the resulting projects will attract more.

Craig Latta:

I want to produce great systems with Squeak, and spread the word about others I see.

Andrew P. Black:

First, a solid core with excellent development tools that don't give you walkbacks all the time. Then, and I hate to say this, a native windowing package for the major platforms. I think that if we want professional developers to use Squeak produce applications for Windows, or for MacOS, then the end product has to look and behave like a WIndows or MacOS product. Once we have this, Squeak will get the documentation, the tutorials, more books, more consultants, etc., because they will be able to make a living out of it.

That's all folks (woops, wrong cartoon).

Matthew Fulmer:

Pay Randal.

Igor Stasenko:

I'll try to do my best to contribute good code, to make Squeak compete and win. And, of course encourage others to do the same. Individuals, by own, having quite limited potential. But team with strong vision of goal and efficient management can do amazing things.

How pathetic.. :)

Tansel Ersavas:

First obviously by using in commercial projects. I think examples are the best attractors. Especially when they are quantified so people can see and compare the times and effort they would need to develop a comparable system.

Last year in Kyoto at C5-07 We organized a workshop entitled: "Beyond Education: How can Squeak Make a Lasting Impression in Developing Commercial Software" precisely to lay down a path for making Squeak the premier tool for commercial developments. Continuing such activities and showcasing such commercial software would be a good start.

Giovanni Corriga:

Advocacy and advertisements. Lots of people may be interested in Squeak, and someone has to go, find them and convince them we're not on crack ;)

Edgar J. De Cleene:

Difficult one. Web development with Squeak seems solid to me. Found sponsors for specific projects and show people we have some others don't.

Randal L. Schwartz:

I think he was spot on (editor: A reference to Matthew's answer above). If you want Squeak to be taken seriously as a development platform, you need to find people like me who can take an open source product and provide all the infrastructure around it (tutorials, courses, books, trainings), and find a way to be financially self-supporting.

For success in the marketplace, you need:


If Squeak has all that, Squeak will succeed. Fail any of those, and Squeak will become "just another interesting project".

Dan Ingalls:

It's hard to promote a professional software development that's different from everything else. To me some of the keys are to offer things that no one else can offer, to be light on our feet to use our metacircular leverage to adapt to new situations, to morph into something else, to look like something else, etc. Look back at number 6. That is where the action is, and it is what will feed life back into Squeak and this community. I didn't answer the question, did I?

;-)