I full agree with Andres.

Diego


> 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