Taking control of parts of Squeak

goran.hultgren at bluefish.se goran.hultgren at bluefish.se
Sun Feb 23 20:14:27 UTC 2003

Hi all!

Martin Wirblat <mw.projanynet at SoftHome.net> wrote:
> > Hi Roel and you all down there in Bern!
> >
> > Roel Wuyts <roel.wuyts at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
> > > Hi Goran,
> > > before mentioning anything on the list I'd like to discuss some views

Sorry Roel for moving this into the open - I hesitated but then thought
it was the better move.

> > > we have here on how the decentralization of responsibility of Squeak
> > > could be done.
> ..... 
> > > - all changes to the part that you are responsible for, can only be
> > > approved by you.
> >
> > Yes, that is the idea with responsibility! :-)
> Not a good idea for the core release. For everyone who had problems with
> the way Squeak Central behaved ( I read something like 'dictatorship' on this
> list ), this will be an even worse repetition of the past. Imagine that there

Well, this is not my recollection of the SqC era. SqC "behaved" very
good. At the time the community wasn't strong enough to stand on our own
feet (and we haven't really proved ourselves yet) and SqC did a really
good job IMHO.

But sure, we all *want* a community driven Squeak so having SqC stepping
down and giving us the chance to show that we can handle it was a good
thing. Given that we handle it of course! :-)

> is someone on the 'approval-trigger' who has a 'special' opinion of how things
> have to go, or who is more and more considered by the community of being not
> able to make the right decisions.

Well, the point is that we already have an unofficial scheme like this.
There are many parts of Squeak that only a few master and can decide
about. Personally I think one of the real driving forces in open source
projects is the ability to do a good job and get the respect of the
community. And one very important thing is to make decisions about core

So I want us to move into a model where the core packages are
"stewarded" (as someone so eloquently put it) by people really
interested/competent and trusted by the community to do a good job.

Squeak as a whole is still "ours" and all major decisions will of course
be based on discussions on the list.

> How to change it and even how to say it?

What? Didn't get that.
> IMHO this is not 'community'. I would like to add that mails regarding this
> should be sent to the main list and not privately. 

Come on now - I got a mail personally from Roel because he wanted to
bounce a few ideas on me (if that isn't "allowed" then... well, you get
my point). I posted it on SqF because I thought it sounded good and
along the lines that we have been discussing for a long time.

In short - we need to decide how to maintain core Squeak. We have
already decided to split it into packages (a long time ago). It is very
natural to designate "maintainers" for those packages.

> regards,
> Martin

regards, Göran

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list