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

[stéphane ducasse]

> 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.

sure.
You are not facing the problems so this is easy to say.


> 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.

You see sometimes this kind of email pisses me off. I should be  
tired.....
so I breath slowly and continue to read....but as if we would not be  
working
with people. WHAT are you really implying?

> 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. :)


The traffic is the one that we can have.
Who is harvesting? Me!
PERIOD and right now we have been over intense tests to get traits in  
an non
image hack way.

> 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.

ok

> 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)?

Yes

> 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)

Why are you talking about respect?
For me this is simple we do not harvest anything that has a team and  
we wait
that the team push code that we need to integrate. We work until the  
integration is working.

> 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.

Yes

> Ok, now you get an idea of what I would like the definition to  
> include.

Definition of what?

> In short - the rules for the flow here.
>
> regards, Göran
>
> PS. I am confident we can do this, so let's get it done.

Me too.