[Squeakfoundation] Decision time: Are SCG the steward of the
kernel as proposed?
dway at riskmetrics.com
Wed Mar 12 01:34:04 CET 2003
I vote yes.
I was going to mention a minor concern about it being somewhat early to
decide this, because the kernel might be the last piece to be separated
from the rest of the image, which probably won't be for a while. But
this is an important responsibility, so figuring out something well
ahead of time is probably a good idea. And of course some improvements
could be made to the kernel before it is separated from the image, and
the steward would also help decide what exactly makes up the kernel,
and how to separate it.
- Doug Way
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 05:03 AM, goran.hultgren at bluefish.se
> Hi fellow Guides!
> When I just wrote the "monthly status report" I realized that we
> really decided about "giving" SCG the Stewardship of the kernel. Of
> course, we guides are by no means "dictators" but we do have a
> responsibility to move discussions into decisions and after reading
> through this thread (the post from Alexandre Bergel felt like the
> "official request" from SCG) it looks to me that everyone is in favour
> of this arrangement.
> So someone needs to "hit the club in the desk", or whatever you call
> We talked a bit about what being a Steward means and we more or less
> came to the conclusion that we don't want to set any rules at this
> point. It is better to move ahead and learn. The only "guideline" that
> Andreas mentioned would be that as a Steward you simply need to be
> careful" when evolving the package - you obviously have much more
> dependents maintaining something in the kernel.
> What we all wanted was some form of charter from SCG what they plan etc
> but I think we have a pretty good picture already and it probably will
> not affect the decision here - which is more a question of trust in
> their capability and motives. :-)
> So, just to move forward one step:
> Can we Guides agree to give SCG this Stewardship? I vote yes.
> Let us all (us Guides that is) reply to this post so that we get a full
> count (6) and then we can make it "official", unless of course someone
> is against or still have things to discuss in which case we will just
> have to discuss further.
> regards, Göran
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> Squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org
More information about the Squeakfoundation