Ramon Leon wrote:
> ...
>> So yet again we end up with more forks than when we started with, and
>> lots of work that has already been done is going to go to waste.
>>     
>
> And?  Everyone has a right to fork, it's what they do when they're
> dissatisfied with the way things currently work.  You seem to have
> this presumption that you're right and everyone else is wrong or
> misinformed.  Have you considered that perhaps you're wrong?  I'm not
> saying you are, I'm just saying you come across as if that's just an
> impossibility.
>
> You're trying to wrangle all the forks into cooperation with each
> other by imposing a process on them.  If all those people were good at
> collaborating with each other, they probably wouldn't have forked in
> the first place.  Perhaps they have enough work in their own projects
> that they don't have the extra time to follow your process because
> sharing everything they do in a way compatible with other forks is not
> their primary goal.
>   

Agreed. Forks have their reasons to exist. They are not a bad thing. And 
if you believe you have the magic recipe to join them, you're wrong. 
Each fork might have different reasons. For example, it looks like Pharo 
exists because of people issues, not technical. So most likely, they 
will not want to join back with Squeak, no matter what process we have. 
As another example, Cuis, my own fork exists because I want to clean the 
Squeak kernel. So, it can _not_ use the Squeak kernel! Before designing 
the whole process after the idea of joining forks, we should ask "Do 
forks want to join?" "Do forks want to adopt this process and tools?"

Cheers,
Juan Vuletich