[Squeakfoundation]sqf-formation list

[Doug Way]

Simon Michael wrote:
> 
> cg@cdegroot.com (Cees de Groot) writes:
> > Is that OK with everybody?
> 
> NO! Cees I'm usually a fan but I think hard work has softened your brain
> here. :-) We don't need another squeakfoundation list at this point.

Well, I think having a separate semi-private list is reasonable for SqF participants to use to coordinate nuts-and-bolts SqF work.

Semi-private meaning only those with a well-defined role in the SqF can post to it, but everyone can read it, as Cees mentioned.

The important thing is that no one should feel excluded from volunteering for the SqF if he/she has something concrete to contribute.  But I think it's reasonable to restrict posting access to a working list to those who have specifically volunteered to do something.

This list can still be around for anyone to use for brainstorming and public announcements.  On the other hand, you could argue that we don't really need two SqF lists plus the squeak-dev list... the brainstorming and announcements could happen on the squeak-dev list, and we could get rid of this public Sqf list.  I could go either way on that.

My 2 cents,

- Doug Way
  dway@riskmetrics.com