I'd be willing to work with something like this. A few comments -
IMO, SQEPs need a lighter name.
BOOS (Benevolent Oligarchy Of Squeak), aka, Squeak Guides. I think we really prefer the chosen name, if you don't mind. Didn't quite understand the intended difference between that and the editor. I don't mind (read - would be glad if) there's someone else that handles all the SQEP initially, but since we're likely to decide if it's going into the image (assuming that it even should) maybe we're the editors? like I said, I don't understand that nuance.
SQEPs should also have a section where they detail a transition plan, including * how it avoid breaking anything important, and * what it's likely to break anyway, and * how it get's split into lots of little stages that people can approve in finite time, accepting finite risk * How it'll be presented to the community in a testing friendly format before us Guides are make positive decisions about it (I promise to immidiately reject anything, without undue delays, if so requested by the author ;-).
Daniel
Serge Stinckwich Serge.Stinckwich@info.unicaen.fr wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:32:55 +0100 Hannes Hirzel hannes.hirzel.squeaklist@bluewin.ch wrote:
Craig
Craig Latta craig.latta@netjam.org wrote:
I think we do have a constructive process.
You rise an important issue. I think this deserves attention.
Serge Stinckwich was suggesting on 17-Feb that we should think about the development process.
I start to write a text for the development process. Right now, it's just a rough copy of Python PEP with some Squeak adaptations. Your comments are welcome.
Look at : http://www.iutc3.unicaen.fr/serge/244
-- Serge Stinckwich -< ) multiagent.com Université de Caen>CNRS UMR 6072>GREYC>MAD /~\ squeak.org http://www.iutc3.unicaen.fr/serge/ (/ | zope.org Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)] _|_/ debian.org
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org