> 
> > > One simple example:  I am the one to blame to have accepted the 
> > > "asPlural" changeset.
> > > So, yes, dumb idea to approve that. Something like that happens.
> >
> > One point to make here is that with a few safeguards, there 
> wouldn't 
> > be anyone to "blame". The proper process in the right setting would 
> > make sure this doesn't happen. It doesn't mean that people 
> can't have 
> > fun or that it isn't agile. But, it could mean that Squeak 
> would grow 
> > and be more recognized and used by others.
> 
> Sounds presumptuous. So what's this process that will fix all 
> of these issues?!

Hi Andreas,

	my point here is rather simple: if there is a problem, the process
should be analyzed and fixed; the person should not be blamed. 

Again, I'm not suggesting a new process, but I could ;-)
It's just a red flag for me to see that code submissions can make it into a
released product without peer review. Is peer review a fix-all: heck no.
It's just one accepted practice. Is it fool-proof: heck no. I've seen
instances where people will make agreements just to get their code in (if
you'll approve mine, I'll approve yours). Any process can be hacked.