Let us face reality
Cees de Groot
cg at cdegroot.com
Fri Jan 28 14:12:25 UTC 2005
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:00:13 +0100, Alexander Lazarević
<Alexander at lazarevic.de> wrote:
> I can't think of a community driven project where every member gets the
> assurance, that his work will be included without any question.
Sure. But that's either always about small bits, or big bits that are
usable anyway (for example, I'm investing a lot of time currently in
learning wxSqueak and maybe I'll invest quite a bit of time in making it
better - if wxSqueak never becomes mainstream, I don't care because I
could make use of it). A full redesign, from scratch, by committee, of
squeak.org is a different beast - a lot of work, and utterly useless if
the community does not decide to adopt it.
Therefore I advocate an incremental solution. Continuous Improvement.
> You talk about a "project of respectable size". So what do you plan or
> envision for squeak.org? You haven't said anything about that. And it
> shouldn't be hard to write this down if the current squeak.org is that
> bad.
>
First off, squeak.org is always "bad". By definition. It will never be
finished, and will need continuous improvement. Short term improvements:
- Maybe an updated look, although that's not very important;
- A more concise and complete tour of the premises for newbies, references
to information that's normally hard-to-find, etcetera;
- (via a proxy) inclusion of the minnow wiki.
But that's just *a* list I'm making up as I type this mail, not *the*
list. The idea is that we decide, as a community, what small bit needs to
be tackled next. And that will be a continuous process.
> "Community-controlled server" sounds pretty neat. But what does that
> mean? Would it be controlled by you and some people of your choosing? Or
> would anyone from this list have direct access to the server? Or based
> on the static social ranking on squeakpeople? Or..?
That server is there. There is a number of sysadmins (Goran, Ken, me),
which in some sense "control" the server, but we don't solely decide
what's going to run there and what not. The suggestion that a community
server needs to be accessible by everybody is, of course, absurd - the
idea is that we can host services important to the Squeak community here,
in a way that is largely independent of any single person of institution.
And that the consensus of the community decides what's worthwhile to be
hosted there or not.
> So if "it's not ok" my work won't be included? So I can't be "absolutely
> sure that the results of my efforts are used"? Who is gonna decide "if
> it's ok" or not?
>
The usual approach is that stuff is discussed here on the list, people get
a sense for consensus and act based on that. Seems to work fine so far.
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|