Stephane Ducasse <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
	    - why the open-source model of squeak does not work?

Hmm.  I have a great Smalltalk that didn't cost me a cent.
I have been able to contribute a few small fixes to this mailing list.
What do you mean "doesn't work"?

	        - call for improvement where people could argue why a
	        crucial change have to be done.
	
We've had quite a few of those.

		- much better enhancement integration instead of waiting
		that SqC agrees or does the job (I think that this
		should not be their role).  I have the feeling that
		Squeak is not open.  This is not intended against SqC
		but against the process itself.

How is this different from gcc, exactly?  Or the Linux kernel?
Or for a closer comparison, SmallEiffel?

		I'm thinking that we are too self-oriented and not
		looking for successes of the other communities.
	
I am having difficulty understanding this.  What does it mean?
(I'm on several mailing lists and probably count as a "member" of at
least three other open source "communities".)

I would suggest that the success of an (open-source) community has
at least something to do with how many people *want* the product, and
unfortunately not as many people want Smalltalk as would benefit from it.

		- having a infrastructure that support changes
		identification in a much better way that changeset so
		that we can built a squeak from a list of modules.
	        
Many of us are eagerly awaiting Stable Squeak, which amongst other things,
appears to offer something like that.

	But are you really sure that I'm wrong.
	
No.  I'm not even sure what you mean.  Care to explain a bit more fully?