Defining the damn 3.9 process! (was Re: SqueakFoundation money)

[goran at krampe.se]

Hi fellas!

As the Network Team leader (and general board member, yaddayadda) I am
*very* interested in getting a process defined for 3.9.
And I agree with Cees etc that money is not the answer, sure, it can be
an *ingredient later on* - but without a *defined process* money sure is
not going to help.

Ok, so let me check what Teams we have:

	http://www.squeak.org/Community/Teams

Aha! "v3.9" and "Packages" are the main teams for getting this process
defined. IIRC the Packages team stalled, but at least we adopted the
packages orientation that Impara use and we also at least got the
Steward idea rolling a bit. We now have 7 Stewards teams defined (see
above) and it is now very important that the v3.9 team defines how to
act with them and start working *with* us.

Looking at the v3.9 list it seems slow right now:

	http://discuss.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/ezmlm-browse?list=v3dot9

...can we get some discussion *there* (and not on the board list or
private emails) please and get this process defined? Take this as a
STRONG hint to reply to this email on the 3.9 list and not on the board
list. :)

I really hope that you can first read what Ken and I wrote when
kickstarting the Stewards (first to packages list, second to squeak-dev)
and what I wrote about how we want to work in the Network team:

	http://discuss.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/ezmlm-browse?list=packages&
cmd=showmsg&msgnum=374
	http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2005-October/096
156.html
	http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/network/2005-October/000016
.html

Now, my challenge to the v3.9 team is to concoct a process based on
this. As you can see above the Network team has decided to always work
with the latest published image from 3.9 and we will produce .mcz's -
both for our package and possible bundled with .mcz's for other packages
that need to be modified. And we decided that we decide together when to
push stuff to you guys - typically when we think we have "enough
goodness" bundled up - we don't want to push too often.

Now, *how* do we "feed" you guys? Do we throw them in your inbox *and*
send a corresponding mandatory email to the v3.9 list (seems
reasonable)? And if this is a good process - when you decide to muck
about in our package :) how do you handle *us*? We are *upstream* now -
so I really, really hope you realize that you must respect that (or else
the Steward idea falls apart from the start) and that you feed your
proposed changes back to us so that we can review, integrate and feed
them back to you. Or something like that.

Ok, now you get an idea of what I would like the definition to include.
In short - the rules for the flow here.

regards, Göran

PS. I am confident we can do this, so let's get it done.