I would have not expected something more positive from you.

Stef

On 18 mars 06, at 10:47, Andreas Raab wrote:

> Hi Stef -
>
> I hope you're not too disappointed but personally I don't think  
> that this list is particularly well suited for applying bounties.  
> Most of the goals seem way to unspecific ("improving", "fixing",  
> "making X better" mean little without saying what to improve, fix,  
> or make better) and some of the tasks seem quite large and/or  
> complex. But feel free to give it a shot, your opinion is as good  
> as mine (or perhaps better) in this area. I'm actually kinda  
> curious myself what (if anything ;-) might happen.
>
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas
>
> stéphane ducasse wrote:
>> On 18 mars 06, at 01:28, Andreas Raab wrote:
>>>
>>> Personally, I think bounties work best if they are used in the  
>>> context of an existing support network. For example, I would  
>>> think that a bounty for, say, "making loading in Monticello  
>>> faster" might work because there is a community of MC developers/ 
>>> users out there, it's a small, tangible (and easy to measure)  
>>> improvement and it's (most importantly) not in the critical path  
>>> of anyone (if it doesn't get done, so what).
>> Exactly.
>> Here is a list of item
>>     improving squeaksource
>>     fixing scriptloading
>>     making MC loading faster and been better
>>     having a better OB faster integrated RB
>>     fixing the weakreference
>>     fixing the refresh
>>     curving MVC
>>     cleaning the image to use toolbuilder
>>     ...
>> are the kind of items we would like to see fixed.
>> So this would work.
>> Stef
>
>