[Squeakfoundation]Guides swiki pages and more

[Daniel Vainsencher]

I agree -
The SqF Swiki seems to me to be a pretty natural place to stay.

I agree about roles/tasks smearing - some things make me itch to help
move along (imag refactorings, Flow), I'm sure each of us has his, making 
the dividing lines shallow sounds like the way to make the most of it.

I don't mind driving the release discussions. Of course, most of the ideas 
won't be mine, so people - start thinking now about something (smallish) 
that needs to be done, and a proposal on how to get it started/done in 3.5.

One thing though - Scott is pushing 3.4 along quite nicely, but I think
we should help more. When the updates were announced for Tuesday, I for
one was date-fogged due to vacation and thought it was a weekend, and so
"had plenty of time"... and missed it.

So, I think we should have someone tracking and doing preliminary
testing any proposed updates more or less immediately. If someone has
time to do this for 3.4, that's cool. If not, I can do that at weekend
boundaries (eg - will test during weekends anything posted by Scott
during the week).

Daniel

Doug Way <dway@riskmetrics.com> wrote:
> 
> goran.hultgren@bluefish.se wrote:
> > 
> > Hi fellow Guides!
> > 
> > I just refactored our SqF pages a bit ...
> > 
> > I also took the liberty of changing the "Current Foundation Projects"
> > into listing the three projects that I think are the current "projects".
> 
> Sounds good.  (Btw, I updated a few older pages myself, such as Modular Squeak Discussions, etc., just so they're not misleading.  And this led me on a trail of updating some pages over on minnow too, such as the Modules page.  Swiki cleanup often leads you around like that. :-) )
> 
> > and added this btw:
> > 
> > "Currently we use the SqF swiki to keep some Swiki pages on what we do
> > and how etc. Eventually this might move over to the main Squeak Swiki,
> > we will see how things pan out."
> > 
> > I haven't thought much about this but perhaps we need to figure out
> > "where to live" eventually. Perhaps SqF Swiki is fine. Or perhaps we
> > should be at minnow. Or perhaps we should have something of our own. I
> > don't know.
> 
> The SqF Swiki seems like a fine place for now, since it's more focused on Squeak community/organizational issues.  (Perhaps if SqF gets going as a legal entity at some point, we may want to move, or maybe not.)
> 
> > Further I separated the roles page into two. Daniel hasn't "confirmed"
> > his role but whatever, the role bit didn't seem to land so well with you
> > guys anyway. Feel free though to *change* the roles I outlined to
> > something you like yourself and then confirm that. I am happy as long as
> > I know what people DO.
> 
> Some comments on my listed role:  Mostly it sounds fine.  I could be the initial maintainer of the update stream, starting with 3.5alpha, similar to Scott's current role at SqC.  Also, I can coordinate the evolution of the new harvesting/update framework.  (Even if someone else such as Luciano works on the tool itself.)
> 
> I don't want this role to become *too* expansive, though. :-)  There's already enough responsibility for me in the above two tasks.  I wouldn't want people to think that I am in charge of deciding which larger items should go in 3.4, or 3.5, for example.  That's for all of us to decide, with plenty of input from the community too.  Actually, I think Daniel has done a good job so far of acting as a moderator for these decisions (see "3.4 Roadmap" etc. messages), so perhaps he could continue doing that.
> 
> Anyway, I guess I'm just saying that these roles have some overlap, they will need continuous refinement, and we should feel free to work on stuff outside of our roles.  But it is good to have these basic roles in place just so that someone is responsible for getting certain things done.
> 
> - Doug
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> Squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation