Hi Joshua!

"Joshua 'Schwa' Gargus" <schwa at cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 02:42:23PM +0100, goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
[SNIP]
> > Problem #1:
> > The decision process is... well, do we even have one? ;-)
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Your PROPS proposal is a positive step for formalizing proposals so
> that they don't just get forgotten in the rest of the list mail.  This
> is good.  They don't solve anything on their own, though.  For
> example, I have the perception that it is currently very difficult to
> get anything into the update stream that isn't a FIX or REMOVAL.  As
> long as they don't go against the modularization effort (eg: by adding
> more circular dependencies between chunks of code that will eventually
> become packages), then there is no reason (that I see) not to add
> enhancements other than fixes/removals.

We agree on this. And yes, perhaps we have made it sound like
enhancements simply can't go in - but that is not true. Have you read
the plan for 3.6? Let me quote:

>...
>2. Then when we have a reduced image we move forward with some
>aggressive harvesting. Sure, we have performed harvesting during step 1
>above - but not "the heavy stuff" since we wanted to concentrate on the
>removals. The following areas should probably deserve our *primary
>attention* beside the regular harvesting:
>	1. Work produced by MCP.
>	2. Work produced by KCP.
>	3. Anthony's runtime enhancements.
>	4. Craig's simulator fixes.
>	5. Substantial enhancements currently on SM need to be reviewed and
>possibly applied.
>
>Number 5 above refers to packages on SM that essentially are
>improvements that could be merged into their appropriate package inside
>the image. For example, if there are very nice improvements to Morphic
>they could be folded in as long as they don't "produce inter-package
>dependencies". Since it will take a long time before Morphic turns into
>a real external package we can't keep these on hold. We will compile a
>list of the packages that could be considered.
>
>Then of course we have the general harvesting going on. :-) The list
>above is so that we do not miss these - it would be harmful to
>especially the MCP/KCP projects if their work didn't get the chance.
>...

Here you see that we have *explicitly* stated this. Right?

> Your proposal will help us remember that, yes, so-and-so proposed
> such-and-such, but won't help code into the image unless there is
> a change in attitude about what gets in and what doesn't.

What do you mean with "change in attitude"? Reread the plan I quoted
above and explain what you think is wrong.

> > ----------
> > Problem #2:
> > There is a perceived lack of Vision from the Guides. The community wants
> > to know "where" we are heading. I have picture hanging in front of me as
> > I write this. It is a poster from ThinkGeek. It looks like this:
> > http://www.despair.com/ignorance.html
> > 
> > Background:
> > We Guides wrote a mission statement. It does actually contain goals and
> > duties etc. I am not sure how many have read that statement. But anyway,
> > there are people who surely have read it and still think that we lack a
> > Vision. Us Guides are wrestling with this because we have different
> > visions about Squeak. But we could of course try to see if we can "flesh
> > it out" more than the mission statement contains.
> > 
> > Medicine:
> > I can understand the perceived lack. I also urge people to realize how
> > hard it will be for us to produce a Vision that is concrete enough to be
> > interesting and still broad enough to cater to all of us in this
> > community.
> 
> I understand that different people have different interests and
> reasons for participating in the Squeak community.  However, I
> strongly believe that it is critical to acknowledge the vision that
> lead to Squeak's creation, and incorporate a commmitment to continuing
> that vision into the mission statement.  The quote from Dan had
> something like "number-one priority"; we don't have to be that
> emphatic about it.

But Joshua - please remember that this is now a *real* Open Source
project.
In open source people pursue the itches and needs they have.
We can't tell people what to do.

Sure, we should revise the mission statement but it will probably be
changed in order to make sure no group is alienated more than any other.
If there is a group stepping forward that want to pursue the original
vision then fine. And if there is another group stepping forward that
wants to clean up the kernel (think KCP) then fine. As long as we make
Squeak better!


> I've said this before, so let me try to get it from a slightly
> different angle.  It is clearly impossible for the Guides to please
> everyone.  I warn against going to far in the attempt to.  If there
> is one important value/goal that is worth potentially alienating
> some (prospective) members of the community, then this is it.
> Anyway, since this wouldn't be the only element of the Guides
> mission, the potential for alienation is small.
> 
> Repeat: Squeak is the result of a vision that the community seems
> to be in danger of throwing away.  Alan has said that Smalltalk is

I can't see anyone throwing anything away. Squeak will be what we make
it!
And if noone steps forward pursuing the original vision (which one is
that btw? eToys? Dynabook?) then it simply will not be pursued!

> one of those systems "good enough to eat its young".  Without an
> explicit intent to transcend what we have now, we will be stuck
> with it since it is "good enough" (and better than anything else
> that I know of, IMHO)

That I agree with. And *personally* I have been very frustrated in the
past when the ultraconservatists have argued strongly against obvious
improvements.

My impression of the Guides is that none of us are afraid of change. And
all of us want to make Squeak better and better. But also - I think most
of us, if not all, realize that small steps work.

> If you're still worried about stepping on toes, then take a poll
> of the community.  I believe (hope) that there is a silent majority
> who would agree that something like this should be in the Guides
> mission, which is the closest thing we have to a mission statement
> for the entire community.  If most people agree with me, then not
> many toes will be stepped on.  If not, then I am sad, and will shut
> up.

We will - if the other Guides agree with my proposal - look into doing
such polls.

> > But we Guides will try to formulate in more detail where we hope that
> > Squeak is going and our motivations for doing the things we are doing.
> > The result will be a revised mission statement - call it version 2. :-)
> > And if the other Guides are with me on this we will do this by running a
> > discussion on the SqF-list where we synch our ideas/visions with each
> > other and try to come up with something we can stand united behind. And
> > hopefully this will be good enough.
> 
> Hopefully so.
> 
> Joshua

And finally - remember that us Guides are meant to rotate within the
community. No rotation has taken place yet though.

regards, Göran