> Keith:
>
> Looking to the past sometimes is good.
> But if we wish "made the future", should concentrate on 3.10 and beyond.
>   
Dear Edgar,

I have been working on the process, the process is orthogonal to the 
actual release to which it is applied.

3.10 is a moving target whereas 3.9 is an established quantity, and 
after a few months in use the list of immediate needs is likely to be 
well scoped and easily obtained, 3.9.1 is a simple acheivable, well 
defined target to aim at, with which to test the process improvements.

I do not think that it is helpful to plan 3.11 until a) we have a 
process, and b) we have a framework for specifying what is wanted. I 
have plans to contribute to a) the process and b) the framework for 
collaboratively specifying the future roadmap. Hopefully this little 
3.9.1 project will serve as an example of how this could be done (or not).

For now I am picking 3.9.1 as a small, manageable and useful task.

Best regards

Keith
> 3.9 was a step what most people in this list do.
> 3.11 is what we should discuss.
> We should take Pavel Kernel as base ? MinimalMorphic ? (Once I submit some
> MinimalAgreement to he and to Ralph)
> Juan idea of Morphic 3.0 deserves a deep look.
> It's Monticello 2 a better tool for doing a release ? It's ready for we try
> it ?
>
> Edgar 
>
>
>
>
>
>