Hi Brent and all!

"Brent Vukmer" <bvukmer at blackboard.com> wrote:
> Goran, Cees --
> 
> Thanks for taking a look!  Your edits are very helpful.  
> 
> I assumed pretty much everything I wrote on those 3 pages would be heavily edited :)  I just wanted to get the ball rolling by creating at least a 0.1 draft of the Swiki pages...

Yeah, good initiative.

> Goran:
> 
> 1. Definition of "Core packages"
>      --No argument.  I tried to indicate that talking about "core" packages in 3.4 is pretty ambigous.
>      --I liked Cees's note

Well, he sortof defined yet another meaning but... hmmm. I think we
should try to keep these package groups as few as possible. Martins
suggestion simplified my own first stab at a grouping and he suggested
simply two groups - "core" and "extra".

Cees may of course have good arguments backing it up - but why do we
need to separate what Martin (and I) would like to call "core" into
"core" and "base"?

In short - I want the groups to reflect some form of semantical
difference and not just domain. And the semantic difference between
"core" and "extra" is very clear. But what is the difference with class
Browser and class Collection? Why should one be called "core" and the
other "base"?

Sorry to be rambling, but I still think package grouping is a very
important thing for us to clear up. Otherwise chaos may very well ensue.

> 2. Lists of classes/categories
>      --These lists were intended to be a throw-away first draft, as I tried to indicate
>      ----I hope/expect that the community will edit those pages and make 'em more accurate and helpful
>      --It was helpful to me, at least, to get an initial idea of the possible package boundaries

I am just tired of redundant swiki pages forgotten by the author that
aren't up to date. And I also don't like to have the "reference manual"
of Squeak in a Swiki - I want that *inside Squeak*. You know - the
classic problem of keeping two different places in synch. Why would
someone remember to edit this page when a class is added or removed?

But you had one nice point though - as a historic record it may serve
some form of use. But then I would not create a page *for each class* -
it would suffice with an annotated list. Though I still would rather
likely look inside the image, but hey... we are all different! :-)

> 3. Becoming a steward
>     --I tried to indicate that becoming a Steward is not automatic by *any means* ( see http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/3090 )

Yes, I actually saw that when I already had posted my mail and had
edited a few pages. But anyway - it's good to be clear on this.

>     --Thanks for editing http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/3070
> 
> Are the MCP the collective Steward for Morphic, yet? Ditto KCP for the Kernel?

Well, KCP has clearly stated that intent. I am not so sure about MCP -
to my ears it has sounded like a "one shot". But if they are interested
I think they seem qualified - their work so far looks impressive (though
I haven't really looked at the changes).

I also assume that there are quite a few other interested parties in
Morphic. Like the Croquet guys for example.

> Thanks,
> Brent

Hey, thank *you*. One last word of advice - it is easy to become excited
and create a lot of Swiki pages. Please remember (as I assume you all
do) that they need to be kept up to date too...

Actually - it would be nice if the darn Swiki could send out "please
update this page, it was 325 days since last edit" to people that in
some way have signed up as "moderator" for that page. Just a thought.

regards, Göran