[Squeakfoundation]Guides swiki pages and more

[Doug Way]

goran.hultgren@bluefish.se wrote:
> 
> ...
> Ok - this is the very, very *last* time I write about these roles. If
> you guys still think it was a bad idea then by all means - we should
> then *remove that page*. There is no point in having a page saying
> something that we don't agree on! I for one would of course think it's a
> pity that we can not explain to the community which one of us is
> "guiding" what...
> 
> Now shoot. (And don't come arguing that the roles I described should be
> in some other way - I have already asked for you to change them into
> whatever makes you happy)

I think the Guide Roles page is good to have and we should keep it.

I only wanted to clarify what it means to have a role.  Probably I should add a bit of text at the beginning of the roles page about this.  Ok, I just added it to the roles page... feel free to edit it as appropriate.

http://swiki.squeakfoundation.org/squeakfoundation/73

> > 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.
> 
> Good. (Then that would be nice to have as your role... Smack! [Hits
> myself on forehead] Right, shouldn't talk about that any more.)

Nah, don't worry, you can still talk about roles. :-)

> > 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.
> 
> I try my best to help out by at least looking over the internal stream
> (diffing methods) whenever anything pops up. I will also move my SM
> development into that image so that I "exercise" it more.

I am also doing my development in the internal-stream image now, to exercise it.  That's about it, though.

I was thinking earlier that I would create some harvesting tables (on the superswiki) for recently submitted important fixes for 3.4, but that doesn't sound like much fun. ;-)  And it's probably not necessary, since there are relatively few recent ones that we would consider that haven't already been considered by Scott.

So, we could probably just discuss them on this list on an ad-hoc basis.  I guess I could collect the few ones off the list and post them here in a message soon.  (Then for 3.5alpha we'll have the improved harvesting process in place.)

- Doug