Perhaps, as a small step in this direction, SqC should document their
processes for Squeak development, integration, testing, and publishing.
We all see the change sets and the update server and know a little about
how bug fixes get reviewed and integrated, but it would be good to have
the entire process documented somewhere (is it already?).  Then, I think
it would be good if we had several individuals tracking the SqC updates
as they happen.

- Stephen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
> [mailto:squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On 
> Behalf Of Roger Vossler
> Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 1:03 AM
> To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: Squeak Foundation
> 
> 
> On Friday, June 7, 2002, at 07:33 AM, Ricardo L. A. Bánffy wrote:
> 
> > I am sorry for the huge post, but several ideas were 
> screaming to get
> > out.
> >
> > A Squeak Foundation could be a very smart move.
> 
> It's more than a very smart move. If I read the tea leaves correctly, 
> SqF could
> become a dire necessity in the not too distant future.
> 
> Dan Ingalls posted a message (Brainstormin') back around January 28, 
> 2002.
> It contained three short, but very interesting, paragraphs as follows:
> 
>  >This could look like "why bother/still run by SqC", but our 
> intention 
> is, on the contrary
>  >[and here's the one-minute answer to your original 
> question...], to put 
> SqF in charge
>  >of the artifact and community, and for SqC to become "just another" 
> participating group.
>  >My significant presence in the interim structure is not to 
> recreate the 
> past, but to
>  >ensure continuity while we move on to the future.
> 
> [snip]
> 
>  >This brings to mind a useful way to approach the whole 
> question of what 
> SqF is about
>  >(charter) and how it ought to operate (process).  What if 
> I, and all of 
> SqC had to drop
>  >out?  I don't mean just from SqF, but from Squeak in general, then 
> where would we
>  >(I'm speaking now as just a community member) be?
>  >
>  >I'm planning on sticking around but, almost by definition, 
> if we can 
> figure out how to
>  >carry on without SqC, it would appear that SqF could achieve a fair 
> amount of its most
>  >important purpose, namely to carry on.
> 
> Thus, the handwriting is clearly on the wall. If I read the 
> Viewpoints 
> Research Institute's
> web site correctly, Squeak is not their primary focus, but 
> rather, only 
> a means to support
> their primary focus. This has important implications.
> 
> Essentially, Squeak only needs two more things to reach a state of 
> completion or closure.
> These are as follows: (1) block closures and (2) modules. The work on 
> block closures is
> apparently finished and is awaiting integration with the 
> image. Modules 
> are another
> problem, but a workable solution does not appear to be too far off. 
> True, all sorts of
> Cool New Things could be added and arguments can be made for adding 
> them. However,
> the basic technology in Squeak has been pretty stable since 
> Version 2.8.
> 
> The version 1.x series of releases built the basic system. 
> The version 
> 2.x series of releases
> ramped up the system. The version 3.x series of releases consolidates 
> and completes the
> system. I don't see a lot happening to Squeak proper after 
> that unless 
> there is a SqF to
> carry the effort forward.
> 
> As I see it, there are essentially five steps to getting a 
> SqF off the 
> ground:
> 
> Step 1: Appoint, or shanghai, a new point man (aka Executive Director 
> (Tim Rowledge?))
> to replace Dan Ingalls, our current Interim Executive Director.
> 
> Step 2: Recruit, or shanghai, about a half dozen people to 
> help the new 
> Executive Director
> and keep him/her honest.
> 
> Step 3: Adopt the charter and process that Dan Ingalls 
> suggested in his 
> 1/28/02 post. We
> have been informally doing this anyway and it's pretty 
> straightforward. 
> Use this charter and
> process until something better can take its place.
> 
> Step 4: Designate a module repository that is open, public, and 
> accessible. As I understand
> it, Cees De Groot has basically already done this.
> 
> Step 5: Declare victory, get on with it, and have fun.
> 
> Can this be all that hard to accomplish?
> 
> Cheers, Roger.....
> 
> PS: To answer Dan's question concerning where we would be as 
> a community 
> if SqC
> "dropped out": I believe that we would clearly be in serious trouble, 
> given how we have
> handled this whole SqF thing during the past year or so.
> 
> 
>