From: Cees De Groot But still, I don't like this particular bit of the outcome at all - one of the hardest-working guys on the board didn't get re-elected.
Yes. That surprised me somewhat. Ken's done many of the grubby jobs that nobody else picked up, and he certainly gets my thanks for soldiering on even when the team around him hasn't necessarily done as much as he has.
That means that either the community does not want hard-working people on the board, or - more likely - that there's a disconnect here.
My guess is that there's a disconnect here. I think a number of people see 'the board' as setting Squeak's future technical direction as well as / instead of its co-ordination role, and that they have chosen to elect people who are going in a technical direction that they prefer.
If we are aiming to keep a technical community from fragmenting, this may not be a bad election outcome. If we are aiming to move forwards in a specific organisational direction, it may well be poor. If we're aiming to do both... well, I suspect the election just set some priorities!
- Peter
P.S. I'm glad the voters showed due diligence and placed me last!
On 26-Feb-06, at 12:37 PM, Peter Crowther wrote:
P.S. I'm glad the voters showed due diligence and placed me last!
We can always appoint you as Viceroy for UK affairs.
tim -- tim Rowledge; tim@rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature.
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org