Squeak Stewards (Was: RE: [Squeakfoundation]Re: Taking controlof parts of Squeak )

Daniel Vainsencher danielv at netvision.net.il
Fri Feb 21 23:00:59 UTC 2003

Consuls/Ceasars, whatever. We very much do need stewards. A lot of the
point of us being Guides and not SqC II (besides not having available
the installation disks for the software, nor the hardware.. ;-) is that
the intention is to decentralize the efforts of moving Squeak forward.

About diplomacy, imperfect English is not a capital crime. Besides, I
think the facts that the mail was sent to a small forum initially, and
that it was sent by you - Roel - of all people, show a good effort for
tact (Sorry Stef ;-).

Before I refer to the SCG's idea of taking care of the "kernel", I'd
like to say we especially will need people able and willing to take
stewardship of the packages we'll be removing from the image. This is
because such packages will no longer be part of the Harvesting process.

About the SCG and the kernel - I think you're definitely capable of
taking care of it, and a well documented tested and maintained kernel
would be a real asset for Squeak. About the policies you propose - 
* I agree people should run available tests before reporting a bug.
* I agree there should be a clear boundary. We should consider using a
DVS module for it, (which supports class extensions), assuming that
we're not losing valuable method category information.
* I agree that the steward should have effective control of his domain.
This means veto power over changes, as you mention, and also an
expectation of having his changes accepted within reasonable time.
Specifically for things that remain part of the image, and specifically
something as important as the kernel, we'll probably need something more
like consuls walking together with whoever's Guiding at the time. I also
agree with Tim's comments, that someone taking this role needs to be
extra careful about their own changes and involve other people in
reviewing them.
* I agree that patches should be tested before submitting to the
* I'd also agree that the steward has to accept or reject, adding that a
reason for rejecting is also needed.
* About the part about bug fixes - I agree that the most reasonable way
to get a bug report is to get a failing test. However, using tests is
not so common among Squeakers. And even if it were, we don't want to
scare beginners out of submitting bug reports. So some active guidance
would need to complement guidelines (not strict rules) in order to make
this change effective, but not too painful.

Before we just ahead of ourselves, what do other people think?


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list