Yeah, I had the same issue with the Squeak Foundation name vs. its structure and people.
I personally think that squeak-dev can be a useful basis for the larger system, in terms of creating useful infrastructure that they don't care about enough to make. But that's for them to decide.
Me, I want to create a system that people can decide to participate in, so I'm against making the boundaries too tight, even by the name. And the other communities seem to have no problem differentiating themselves, so maybe crowding the namespace isn't so terrible.
Getting back to the point - I don't think we need (or have the right) to make exclusionary decisions, I think we should focus on giving the community a tool for decision.
Daniel
Lex Spoon wrote:
Fellows, an alternative that people might want to consider is to rename the group that is organizing. If people prefer to keep the current subgroup in power and then go from there, then how about simply renaming the group from "Squeak" to something like "Islanders Squeak"?
That would make this question of who is represented much less important. It would be that group's project, and whoever wants can join in. Whoever does not, can do their own thing.
Heck, even if it is supposed to represent the larger group, calling it something like "NetSqueak" would seem to make sense. After all, it's no longer the same project that Squeak Central put together and maintained.
Anyway, any organization called simply "Squeak" or "the Squeak Foundation" should surely strive for broad membership from existing Squeak enthusiasts. If that's to be the name, then be prepared for a harder problem....
-Lex _______________________________________________ Elections mailing list Elections@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/elections