Hi Andreas.

Let's see if I got it. You're saying -

1. Guides can veto the inclusion of changes into the image.
2. The image(s) available at any given moment IS the expressed strategy
of Squeak. Stuff available at SM is not relevant, because it is not as
immidiately accessible. You're not saying this explicitly, but seem to
be assuming it. Right?
3. Guides do not de-facto actively pursue a strategy of Squeak as media
platform (because they don't recognize and include in the current image
stuff that would advance it).
4. Or any other topical strategy, because the main thing they care about
is just <the stuff we do persue>.
5. 1+2+3+4 mean that nobody else can pursue a strategy, and Squeak is
not being a platform for people, as we say it should be, and that sucks.

About right? If so -

We do intend to have multiple images, starting soon - with 3.6's
release. This will include the "full" image, which I think everyone
agrees should be a "media platform", among things, since cool demos
pretty much require media stuff. This image would be "base" + a set of
packages preloaded. To avoid becoming a fork, this image should try hard
to include packages that are mostly modules. It can apply patch
packages, if it avoids patches to "base" stuff, so that development done
on this image is shareable with "base". It would obviously need to be
led by someone media oriented. 

Does this solve the part that bugs you specifically? if not, how?

Daniel

Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I will make one final attempt to explain matters as things have got taken
> out of context in the lengthy discussion that arose from the original post.
> 
> First of all, a basic premise of mine: I think that all the current
> activities which are visible to the majority of the Squeak community are
> entirely appropriate. Regardless of whether it's KCP, MCP, SqueakMap or
> whatever else, I think all of these activities are absolutely important.
> 
> However, they are not at all the only important things that are going on in
> Squeakland. Of all the others, people hardly get feedback, people hardly
> ever know if what they do is perceived to be important if that's a direction
> into which Squeak should develop.
> 
> The guides (as a group) claim that their task is to coordinate the
> community, not to make decisions. Yet, they have failed to coordinate the
> community in a way that the community actually _can_ make decisions, _can_
> do all the things that are needed and that the guides claim they don't want
> to do.
> 
> Example: As I (and several others) think, the TTF stuff is about the best
> since the invention of sliced bread in Squeak. I want it to be part of the
> "out of the box" experience of what Squeak is. How can I make it so? I
> can't. There is no decision process in place, there is nothing I can do
> _except_ trying to convince the guides and therefore the guides _do_ make
> the decision about it. [Note: This is an example so don't respond to the TTF
> stuff exclusively; the same can be said about many other packages]
> 
> And whoever is making these decisions is setting a strategy for the future
> of Squeak. Deny it as long as you want, but if the guides make the de-facto
> decisions they also make the de-facto strategy. And it is that strategy that
> drives me mad - uniquely focused on "hacking Squeak into bits" (boy, am I
> glad _I_ haven't said that ;-) and by doing so, effectively ignoring every
> other part of the system.
> 
> I think that's the basic problem here. The guides seeing themselves in a
> role which does not match the "daily facts". Add to this the
> infrastructure/communication problems and you end up in a situation where
> both sides suffer. The guides, because they feel blamed for things that they
> deliberately say they don't want no control over, the rest of the community
> because the guides do de facto what they say they don't.
> 
> I don't think this situation can last very long.
> 
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas