Daniel,

I'll skip right to the important parts of your message:

> This feels abstract to me. Who wants what guidance that's missing?

Did you read Diego's post? Wouldn't you say that he wants some guidance
about whether what he's doing is actually worthwhile? Don't you think that
the same applies (on various levels) to a number of projects? And wouldn't
you agree that a statement like

> I would really love Squeak base to be multilingual, but I don't think
> we're ready yet, even if it turns out the code is ready.

coming from one of the guides has some _severe_ implications on the
long-term prospects of Squeak?

> I feel this question is leading us away from the topic.

No, it's dead on. You claim you want the community to participate. You say
that you need people to post their stuff, to voice their opinions. If it is
unclear to people if what they do is perceived as "important" you simply
won't get any of the stuff. 

<Community building 101>
People _like_ doing "important" things as it is a way to gain acceptance, to
improve ones standing within the community. By declaring things to be on the
critical path you directly influence what is being done. By including things
people do, you give people a very strong reason to stay and enrich the
community. By being vague about it you implicitly (or explicitly ;-)
influence things to go the other way. So even if you think you are not
influencing anything by neither saying "yes or no" you still do.
</Community building 101>

> But that which is not my priority, and I might forget, you can still
> push for. What's the big deal?

The big deal is that in this situation it's a game of "delay and
demoralize". You are not acknowledging the effort people put into Squeak for
the good of Squeak. By not doing so, you frustrate the people who are
willing to do this stuff. Possibly up to a point where they simply quit
doing it. Others, who are watching the exchange will see that any such
response (even if given to questions asked directly) are pointless at best.
So in order to minimize personal frustration people will, after a time, stop
doing these things. That's the big deal.

> > That's the reason why I expect it to be remembered - 
> > because you _asked_ for it.
>
> This is fascinating. Ok, I asked. We talked about it, even had some
> agreements. And now what's stopping you from pushing stuff to happen?

So how exactly _can_ I (or anyone else) push to make this happen? All I can
do is to beg, beg, beg. With no clear response to what's happening (if
anything). If these things don't get done, then I can beg again a couple of
month later. How long do you think people are willing to beg before they get
frustrated?

> for example, compile a list of issues in Yoshiki's code, suggest a
> subset of the code that doesnt have issues, and post it as an ENH.
> Whatever. I'm not The Boss, I'm a Guide. I try to surface the 
> important issues.

That's where you are _dead_ wrong. You are telling me here that "you are not
the boss" but there is no entity whatsoever here who _could_ play the boss
so that people are in fact deferring to the guides' judgement expressed by
messages coming from the people involved. You need to realize this or else
you might be outright dangerous in your position. If you don't _want_ to be
in the "boss seat" then your first and faremost issue should be to get some
decision process working which is independent of your personal judgement.
But right now, you _are_ making policy whether you want it or not.

> To try and summerize this part of the thread - anyone that 
> wants to can drive stuff to happen faster in Squeak. 

And to summarize too: How? What exactly needs to happen in order to get
something "into Squeak"?

Cheers,
  - Andreas