Igor Stasenko wrote:
> Now, if we add the nonacceptance of 3.9 release from some of us
> (traits), maybe its worth considering about changing the release
> process, otherwise any future release will be doomed to have same
> level of nonacceptance as previouse releases...

Indeed. Which comes back to my reasons for running in this board 
election. Historically, decisions have been made by the people screaming 
the loudest or the longest. We need to work out a way to fix this and to 
come to a process by which we can make decisions that are acceptable to 
the community at large. Here is a straw-man of what I'm thinking about:

I would like to introduce the idea of a "board project" which is a 
community project that is approved by the board. The idea is that the 
board would bless a particular project with a particular schedule and 
for the period of the project its members can commit freely to the 
required repositories.

A Board Project Proposal (BPP) would have to include:
* A Rationale: Why would we want this project?
* A Deliverable: What is being done (specifically; best with links to 
existing code)
* A Project Lead: Who owns this project?
* A Board Liaison: Who is the board representative for this project?
* A Schedule: What is to be done when.

The most important part of a BPP is its schedule. It allows the board to 
measure progress by seeing if milestones have been reached. For many 
things the schedule might be as simple as reserving one month to make 
the core changes, and another one for bug fixing. That is fine. But what 
the schedule avoids is having projects stalling forever and nobody 
knowing how much behind they are and whether it's even still alive.

Anyone can write a BPP and submit it to the board. The board will vote 
(by closed ballot) on the proposal and can either approve, reject, or 
ask for revision of the proposal.

If approved, the project becomes active. The members working on the 
project can freely post to the required repositories. The board tracks 
and communicates the progress of the active projects in its meetings 
based on the schedule and the milestones.

If an active project does not reach its milestones, it can be canceled 
by the board. When a project is canceled it is the responsibility of the 
board liaison to clean up any damage that might have been created by 
premature commits.

Here is an example BPP:

-----------------------------------------------------------
BPP: Replace InputSensor/EventSensor
====================================

1. Rationale: InputSensor/EventSensor are fraught with peril. Many 
projects (including Sophie, Hydra etc) have had to fight with its 
shortcomings. This project is the integration of a rewrite of both of 
these classes done in Sophie.

2. Deliverable: Integrate code originally posted at 
http://www.mail-archive.com/pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr/msg03413.html 


3. Project Lead: Michael Rueger

4. Board Liaison: Igor Stasenko

5. Schedule:
    - March 09: Update Mantis with code+Installer scripts
    - Milestone: April 1st; All code is committed.
    - April 09: Bug fixing as needed.
    - Project completion: May 1st.

-----------------------------------------------------------

With a proposal like the above the board can most definitely vote on it. 
It's clear what is to be done, why it should be done. There is a 
schedule that can be used to measure progress. If the milestones are not 
achieved the board can react properly.

What do people think? I think one of its main advantages is that it 
strengthens the position of the board. If you don't like what the 
board's approving, run for it yourself (and yes, there is still time!).

Cheers,
   - Andreas