Hi daniel

I think that andreas point is that (at least from what I understood)
we need to have a way for people to attract the community attnetion to
particular needs, What I called Call For Inclusion, Call for 
Improvements

There is no specific way for a group of people to say we need that, and 
what we
are doing should be part of the SqueakMedia Image, or we need to change 
the core for multilanguage support and this should go in core base.

I know I was lobbying for KCP but everything is true for the rest too.
With a simple process a group could propose solution to problem or 
their needs and
lobby the guides and ask for feedback in a more organized way.


Quoted from andreas:

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]

Stef


On Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 08:54 PM, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:

> 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
>