Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
>  What concerns me, and motivated me to start pushing
in certain
>  directions, is that Squeak's direction had ignored
some "economic
>  principles" of software development, and as a
result, really was dying. 

It sounds like to me that it would help Squeak
considerably if it was developed the Extreme
Programming way (especially the core system). i.e.-
Face to Face communication, Pair programming, Test
First Development, on site customer (person(s) acting
in the capacity of) , ect..

http://www.extremeprogramming.org/rules.html
http://www.extremeprogramming.org/map/project.html
http://xprogramming.com/Practices/xpractices.htm
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ExtremeProgrammingRoadmap

Stephane Ducasse wrote:
>  PS: if we could get money for two persons full time
improving Squeak 
>  this would solve a lot of problems.

Yes, at least two full time programmers. Or two
part-time programmers who can arrange to work at the
same time in the same place.  So they can, at a
minimum, practice pair programming.

http://www.extremeprogramming.org/rules/pair.html
http://xprogramming.com/Practices/PracPairs.html
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?PairProgramming

>I'm really wondering how we could make this happens.

Squeak has had a significant involvement in Education,
has it not? Isn't there grants (government, corporate,
or private) which can be applied/lobbied for Squeak? 

The Refactoring Browser was developed at a University
under the guidance of a  professor was it not? Could
something similar be done with Squeak?

Failing that, Squeak developers who are geographically
located near each other could pair on a voluntary
basis.

In the event, were it's not possible to be in the same
room during the development process, ways to
effectively communicate still need to be found.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?InterTeamCommunication

>  If you tolerate this (cruft) then your children
will be next
>  Even now, the image, from a software engineering
perspective, is a mess.
>  Object (The Base Object) indirectly depends on well
over half the
>  classes in the system. 

Dedication to Test Driven Development would help
considerably to resolve and avoid this situation. 

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TestDrivenDevelopment

Moreover, XP puts a very strong emphasis on
communication, especially face to face communication.
A core group of people who are able to meet, plan, and
program in the same room using XP would go a long way
to resolving this cruft.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WholeTeam

Diego Gomez Deck wrote:
>  we have pages and pages describing a process (the
harvesting process) that
>  don't work.  The bureaucracy is killing us.  The
steps to get a fix
>  approved are, in most of the cases, more difficult
and time consumer than
>  the fix itself.  We have lists of people with roles
(guides, harvesters,
>  etc) but in the reality only a few of them are
active and working.
>  These are pressures we simply have to respond to in
order to keep Squeak
>  alive and changing. This is what interests me.

Someone or some persons playing the role of the on
site "customer" could make it easier to resolve the
decision turn around time issues.

http://www.extremeprogramming.org/rules/customer.html

XP's practices were created in order to enable agility
and change. i.e.- "Embrace Change".

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AreYouDoingXp
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ExtremeValues

Just a thought,

Anthony


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com