Daniel,

> Again, my personal opinions.

Acknowledged. So are mine ;-)

> Everybody - We WONT remember your issue for you. It's not
> that it isn't important - its just YOUR issue. You care
> MORE about it than we do. You know it BETTER.
> Why should you wait for us to do something about it? You don't
> expect the state to take care of your childs education do 
> you? (hm, bad example? ;-)

Yeah, pretty bad. As probably all of us are tax payers there are various
issues that we expect the state to take care of. For example, getting the
tax returns back to us...

> In the large, people have come to expect Squeak to be a roller coaster
> of wonders coming from SqC ready made, which was occaisonaly erratic
> (but that usually means something REALLY great is in the works) but
> usually incredible. I too was hooked by precisely that.
> 
> Sorry guys, us Guides can not do that for you.

I don't think anyone is expecting this. However, I have the feeling that
people do expect two things from the guides: a) a bit of project management
and b) strategic guidance. The first point really means that if someone goes
through all the effort which is required to even get close to inclusion it
is (in my understanding) not acceptable if that's simply "not remembered".
It can't be too hard to have some TODO list on a Swiki which gets checked
every other month or so, can it?

The strategic guidance thing is more complex but it's the issue I am even
more concerned about. As of today I don't see the guides (as a group) have a
vision in which to steer Squeak. This means that for anyone who wants to do
something it isn't clear at all if that's somewhere on the "critical path"
to where Squeak is headed. Thus far, all of the activities coming from the
guides seem to be purely infrastructural but infrastructure needs to serve
some purpose. And I don't see any visible direction in which this purpose
might lie. Which, by the end of the day, leads to the situation that when
people want to touch anything, they first query about it on the list which
leads to endless discussions, then they do something and then it may well
get forgotten. Not good.

Finally (because I'm just at some larger issues) consider dropping the
"micro management" approach for larger projects. This just won't work. You
can't spend the time to review each of the CS' produced by teams (such as in
KCP or MCP). You need to have a basic level of trust. For example, if the
KCP team says "we're going to move all the navigation aspects into
SystemNavigator" or somesuch then it's appropriate to discuss the top-level
design decision but you can't review each individual CS. It makes no sense.
It only eats up time and the impression you leave is that you don't even
trust the team in question to handle something as simple as moving a method
from A to B. If that were really the case, then these teams shouldn't do the
work to begin with.

> BTW, I think it's important to achieve this again that stuff like
> OpenCroquet and it's parts get fed back into the core (some into the
> image, some into packages). I'd like all of us to find a way 
> for that to happen.

Sigh. Do you really expect us to justify each line of code we're writing for
Croquet? You gotta be kidding me. Either there's some level of trust in the
work we do or we'll all going to get crazy before long.

Cheers,
  - Andreas