Andreas Raab a écrit :

>> BTW, its quite possible that someone might get pissed off no matter
>> how you do it, but that's part of life. The question is doing it in a
>> manner that only upsets few people, and encourages active people. If
>> we can vote in a board, we can certainly award some funds.
> 
> Unless it affects upfront promises, yes, I think we can. For example, I
> could easily imagine the SqF awarding some money to further the
> development of traits, spoon or whatever else. What I could *not*
> imagine is any upfront promise that the result of that work will be the
> basis for any particular Squeak release. Unfortunately, there seems to
> be a tendency to think that way because otherwise the money is
> considered "wasted" not counting that the gain in knowledge may be more
> valuable than the artifact.


Yes, it is right, promising a deliverable in time and features is very
hard, even with money support. May be an easier way to support the
release process could be to support the development of helpers tools for
the release process and to not support directly the release process.
Well I am sure it has already been suggested. Oh, but yes, then, should
it be the Spoon way or the actual Squeak way?
Looks like the Squeak community is stuck because of mutual exclusive
options in the way to develop Squeak... Look like the benevolent
dictator is needed there. Again I don't understand why Viewpoint
Research is not playing that role.
But probably it is again just misunderstanding because of a very partial
view of the whole situation.

Hilaire