On Thursday, August 9, 2001, at 08:34 PM, Andrew C. Greenberg wrote:
>
>>         - 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.
>
> With all due respect, Bunk.  Raw bunk.  Silly bunk.  Contributions are 
> readily available on the list, and are often made available at websites 
> or Swikis until they are accepted by the community and/or adopted by 
> SqC.  SqC routinely solicits contributions, particularly during version 
> cycles. ...

Okay, there's a bit of Bunk in there, but Raw Bunk? ;-)  More seriously, 
I wouldn't go too overboard in claiming that the current process is 
perfectly fine... it may have the effect of discouraging anyone from 
improving the process.  The current contribution process mostly works, 
although it's fair to say that it hasn't worked quite as well recently, 
since there hasn't been a real culling of contributions since last 
December, I believe. (a few sporadic ones have gotten in, of course)

Dan addresses this in his "SqC, SqF, and Sq itself" message from a 
couple of days ago.  In any case, there is a movement afoot to make the 
process a bit more formal/reliable via the SqF.

- Doug Way
   dway at riskmetrics.com