On 7 March 2010 14:35, Michael Haupt <mhaupt at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ken,
>
> good question.
>
> May I be so impolite as to answer with a counter-question and ask you
> what good it would be? What would be the benefit of having this? Who
> would benefit? What would be the consequences in terms of things
> happening to Squeak? How would Squeak improve? Why would it improve
> more with these things?
>
> If you want my opinion before you answer: I feel much like many of the
> other candidates. It wouldn't be a downright waste of time, but I
> really think valuable time can and should be spent on more
> down-to-earth things that actually make sense to the community and the
> project as a whole.
>

We invited people to discuss this matter.
http://squeakboard.wordpress.com/discussion-terms-of-reference/

There is a terms, proposed by Keith.
The problem, as i see it, that nobody willing to discuss this in detail, by
routinely analyze term by term, and broadly discuss each one with community.
There was no discussion in detail about these tems, about:
 - which ones is acceptable
 - which ones is not
 - which ones is missing

Also, depending on the number of people, involved into duscussion , it
could take years before
we get a final form. But its even didn't started, because there seems
no interest in it.
And i understand why: people came here to learn , use and develop in
Squeak, not to discuss political stuff which having no relation to
their everyday needs or interests.
Maybe Keith expected that these terms should be discussed only among
board members?
Maybe. But without me :) I don't willing to turn myself from developer
to politican, who spends all free time,
discussing things, in which i having zero interest and see zero
benefit to community & squeak.

> Best,
>
> Michael
>
>



-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.