Squeakfoundation April 2003

squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org

17 participants
30 discussions

Re: Sublicensing seems possible
by goran.hultgren＠bluefish.se 04 Apr '03

04 Apr '03

Hi guys! (This response is crossposted to the SqF-list in order to move this thread over there, so in responses - ****skip squeak-dev****, ok?) First of all - I agree wholeheartedly with what Daniel's postings. Daniel wrote (short snippet): > It seems to me sublicensing with: > - current indemnification -> such a clause, > - export -> complying with law, and > - no mention nor inclusion of non-free fonts > > *could* present something that DFSG, OSI, and certainly I would be happy > with. Just as happy as with BSD. If we agree that's a desired result, > and legally workable, we should then present it to Debian (and maybe > Apple). Yes, sounds perfect to me. Andrew was hesitant about sublicensing though - I would like to hear more on that. And I would still like to hear an explanation on sublicensing as a concept. Having said that, I am still waiting for responses (both from Andrew and you others of course) to my other questions, but I will just have to wait a bit longer I assume. :-) Cees de Groot <cg(a)cdegroot.com> wrote: > [We should be moving this thread to SqF, as this whole issue is killing > the squeak-dev list...]. True. Done. > The Apple guy responded positively to the idea of sublicensing. I've Ok, now again - what IS sublicensing? Consider me a complete idiot here. > asked him for permission to share our email exchange with others, which > I assume I'll get later today. He indicated that for Apple to look > positively at the sublicensing thing we'd need to come up with something > that only deviates minimally from SqueakL, just enough to fix it up for > DFSG/OSI/... wherever we want to head.=20 > > So, can we decide as a community that this is OK, a cleaned-up SqueakL? > If yes, it is probably time for some legal guys to take over :-) Sure, I would really like to see Andrew picking up this ball if he is ok with it. Andrew? We would still of course need to build a complete concensus about the proposed actions - but I think we are getting there - these threads have moved us quite a bit forward I think. This should probably be done on the SqF-list and then, when we have agreed on something we can present it on squeak-dev and see the reactions. regards, Göran

8 20

Re: [Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible
by Daniel Vainsencher 03 Apr '03

03 Apr '03

Hi Ted. Cees has already contacted someone within Apple. We're aiming for a license that are at least as compatible for commercial development as SqueakL (and more so, at least as far as removing the fonts and the related clauses would simplify things). What we are trying to achieve is a license that is free. The widely accepted definitions for free software are three, as given by OSI, Debian, and the FSF (see links below). Their definitions are nearly, but not quite, the same, and SqueakL, strictly speaking, complies with none of them (despite the fact that it allows us quite a bit of freedom). This is despite the fact that SqueakL is pretty damn good, as far as licenses signed back then by big companies go. The importance of getting a free license as defined by external, accepted standards, is that A. People should not live in the kind of fear you mention, of someone that has power to revoke or control the software we're investing time in. A free license ensures that, by definition (at least as far as copyright goes). B. We have a BetaMax license - it is almost fine, by itself, but it isn't compatible with other stuff. For example, it prevents us from including Squeak in the Debian distribution, which would get Squeak into the hands of lots of the right kinds of people. For the definitions of free I speak about above, see - www.debian.org/intro/free - www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php - www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html (note here that I mean merely the definition of free - I do not endorse the GPL for Squeak) Daniel Ted Kaehler <Ted(a)SqueakLand.org> wrote: > Folks, > There are at least two dangers in messing with the Squeak license. > > 1. Apple has forgotten about Squeak. If we bring it to their > attention, there is a great probability that they will try to revoke > the current Squeak license. Even if they can't do this legally, they > can put enough doubt into air that companies and groups will be > hesitant to use Squeak for major projects. I strongly discourage you > from contacting Apple. > > 2. One of the best features of the current license is that > commercial development on top of Squeak is OK. Any move to change > this is a big step backwards. > > (Please explain in plain English the thing you are trying to > accomplish by changing the Squeak license.) > > Disclaimer: I am the author of a large part of the current Squeak license. > > --Ted. > > _______________________________________________ > Squeakfoundation mailing list > Squeakfoundation(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation

2 1

Should "Weakness weakness" hold up 3.5? (Was: RE: [Squeakfoundation]Re: [UPDATES] 3.5gamma)
by Brent Vukmer 03 Apr '03

03 Apr '03

For folks that haven't been following this too closely: The bug that Andreas's fix addressed was: "adding inst var to ClassDescription breaks ClassBuilder" ( http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/3058 ). According to Andreas, this bug only happened when one re-compiled Behavior, ClassDescription, or Class. This bug was an obstacle for Nathanael Scharli's Traits project. That bug appears to be fixed. Tim discovered a separate bug, caused by how ClassBuilder validates the matchup between superclass format and subclass format during recompilation of a "variable" class with at least one "weak" subclass. I posted a tentative fix. I am not at all sure how many ways one could break that class-format validation logic. The format validation check may well need more logic for matching the various class formats ( the original logic was "if newType ~~ oldType then throw error" ). -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Vainsencher [mailto:danielv@netvision.net.il] Sent: Thu 4/3/2003 8:21 AM To: squeakfoundation(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org Cc: The general-purpose Squeak developers listSubject: [Squeakfoundation]Re: [UPDATES] 3.5gamma <shifting to sqf list> That's an interesting point. Does that mean we actually delay 3.5, when the 3.6 update stream has already started? another question is, how did we get into gamma, when apparently, one of our two goals for the release isn't actually achieved? Daniel Tim Rowledge <tim(a)sumeru.stanford.edu> wrote: > Daniel Vainsencher <danielv(a)netvision.net.il> wrote: > > > AFAICT, this fix is KCP territory. Unless there is a very good reason > > otherwise, I would await their recommendation (and not delay the > > release). > Well since the 3.5 release was purported to be mostly to include a fix > for a very similar bug and the bug in question has pretty similar > effects - cannot recompile a number of classes - I'd say that without a > fix we really shouldn't even consider 3.5 in beta in any meaningful > sense. > > tim > -- > Tim Rowledge, tim(a)sumeru.stanford.edu, http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim > Spellchecker not found. Press -- to continue ... _______________________________________________ Squeakfoundation mailing list Squeakfoundation(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation

1 0

RE: [Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible
by Daniel Vainsencher 03 Apr '03

03 Apr '03

Hi Andreas. This is a complicated, irritating and touchy issue. I value your opinion, and would very much like to hear what you think of DFSG (as stated in www.debian.org/social_contract.html) compliance as a possible goal for Squeak licensing, if you have the time and inclination to go through their rationale (not that long, really). I am a little frustrated, because the direction I actually wish to take this, is one that I think that no member of SqC would actually object to. This is something that I do care about, and would be very much relieved if you guys took a hard look at it, and let us all know. However different your actual positions may turn out to be from mine. Be well, Daniel Andreas Raab <andreas.raab(a)gmx.de> wrote: > Daniel, > > I apologize for the last message - it was written too hasty. I have in the > meantime communicated with Göran privately (as it involved a number of > things which I didn't feel adequate for a public list). I don't want to undo > anything here - all I want to is that you carefully consider the pros and > cons of what you're planning on doing and. And I'm sure you will do this. > > Cheers, > - Andreas > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: squeakfoundation-bounces(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > > [mailto:squeakfoundation-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org] > > On Behalf Of Daniel Vainsencher > > Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 12:28 AM > > To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation > > Subject: RE: [Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible > > > > > > Andreas, let's review the facts. > > > > Cees has already talked to Apple. You may want to undo that, > > but that's > > impossible, whatever you convince us of. The good news is, on the > > surface, they don't seem that unfriendly. Which may be a > > ruse, but then > > life itself might be an illusion, it's empty speculation. > > > > The people that have mentioned the sleeping lions are Alan, > > Ted, Andrew > > (IIRC). Goran and I were *answering that*. I agree there is some risk, > > and as Alan and yourself have put it, there always is. Fine, > > to the extent > > to which we have no choice, we'll live with it. > > > > No current Guides have expressed a wish to entangle the Squeak image > > with GPLed code. We couldn't stop other people from posting > > such code on > > SM if we wanted, but that's fine, there doesn't be any reason > > to do so. > > > > What we (or at least I) do wish to do, is end up with a license that's > > up to the standards accepted by free software/open source developers > > today. This both to broaden cross-fertilization with them, and benefit > > from what wisdom those standards encode (including a lot of lawyer > > time). > > > > Those standards are up at www.debian.org (my personal favorite) and > > www.opensource.org. > > > > Now, what exactly about this picture don't you like? can you explain > > what you would want different? > > > > Daniel > > > > Andreas Raab <andreas.raab(a)gmx.de> wrote: > > > G1ran, > > > > > > > I know that. What I meant is that I think it is better to > > > > approach Apple and straighten this out once and for all. > > > > > > The "once and for all" part is exactly where you are wrong. > > Even if Apple > > > would change the license there is absolutely nothing you > > can do to prevent > > > them from *trying* to revoke it a couple of years down the > > road. Don't you > > > think that Squeak-L was considered a "once and for all" > > solution at the time > > > it was written? > > > > > > > This way I would know that we have a license that Apple > > > > approves of > > > > > > Excuse me but Apple _has_ approved of the current license - > > they made it! > > > > > > > and that may also turn out slightly better than the one > > > > we have now. Of course, they can change their minds in > > > > the future after that, but that would be much less > > > > likely. > > > > > > And on what exactly do you base your opinion here? Squeak-L > > was made for all > > > the purposes you are mentioning, done by Apple. Now, a > > couple of years > > > later, you state some concerns which are based on no facts > > whatsoever. So if > > > we take this a couple of years down the road then someone > > else might have > > > very similarly unfounded objections. This is just paranoid. > > > > > > > The alternative, which Ted implies - is that the Lion is > > > > sleeping and we shouldn't disturb it because the Lion may > > > > be in a bad mood. *If* Ted is right about the "mood" part > > > > - which information from Cees contradicts - then I would > > > > like a confrontation now, instead of putting more time into > > > > Squeak and "live in fear" of the Lion awakening. > > > > > > Yeah, and play the bull in the china shop. Great idea. > > > > > > > More clear what I meant? > > > > > > It is clear what you mean but that doesn't mean I agree > > with a single word > > > you're saying. It is paranoid no matter how you put it and > > you seem to be > > > willing to risk an open confrontation out of those > > (completely unjustified) > > > objections. And if you guys screw this up then the entire > > community will > > > have to live with the consequences of your paranoia. > > > > > > - Andreas > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Squeakfoundation mailing list > > > Squeakfoundation(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation > > _______________________________________________ > > Squeakfoundation mailing list > > Squeakfoundation(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation > > > > _______________________________________________ > Squeakfoundation mailing list > Squeakfoundation(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation

1 0

Re: [Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible
by Daniel Vainsencher 03 Apr '03

03 Apr '03

And the fact that the world doesn't want to buy iraqi oil doesn't limit the iraqies, it just limits the world, right? You don't want kids in schools to have Squeak preinstalled on their computers, simply because it is part of DebianJr/DebianEdu/Debian multimedia project (I can never remember their precise name)? You don't want the hoards of people that contribute their programming time to free software in stiffer/poorer languages to feel free and safe to contribute Squeak code? I do. Daniel Gary Fisher <gafisher(a)sprynet.com> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Cees de Groot" <cg(a)cdegroot.com> > To: "Discussing the Squeak Foundation" > <squeakfoundation(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org> > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 4:08 AM > Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible > > > . . . but they are willing to discuss other ways out of the > > 'not OSI/DFSG compatible' impasse. > > Pardon my asking, but in what way is this an 'impasse' from the Squeak side? > The fact Debian can't include Squeak in their distributions limits Debian, > not Squeak (which is in fact regularly released in deb packages) while the > lack of OSI Certification is far from the biggest hurdle to wide adoption of > Squeak/Smalltalk. Stripping Squeak just to get a nod from these outside > standards groups -- which appear themselves to have no particular, specific > interest in adding Squeak to their own lists -- seems a bit > self-destructive. The current license is incredibly generous; why rock the > boat? > > Gary Fisher > > _______________________________________________ > Squeakfoundation mailing list > Squeakfoundation(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation

2 1

Re: [Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible
by Daniel Vainsencher 03 Apr '03

03 Apr '03

Ted, first let's make it clear we're not inventing any of the issues - these are things that turn up when you present this license to people that have put a lot of time into thinking about free licenses. Using external references to judge where we stand is not unreasonable. If you care about where my position comes from, please read the below references, I'm sort of tired of explaining this. Details. The big things (as far as Debian is concerned, I haven't read OSI's stuff, but I suspect it's a subset) - 1. Indemnification - the problems Debian have mentioned are - it is too wide (I pay for any suit brought by users to Apple? regardless of what I do?) and it is unfair (Apple should be protected from being sued over Squeak, since it releases it non-commercially. True. Why should this be at the expense of other non-commercial distributors?). DFSG states that licenses should be fair (see www.debian.org/social_contract - "5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups" ). You can see an example of indemnification language that's more general and fair at www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl.php. 2. Fonts - pretty obvious and not hard to fix once they're removed. 3. Export - mentions Apple and US (any reason non-USers should be specifically subject to US laws, any more than is implied by international treaties?). Can be generalized so it says something like "complies with law". Smaller things - 1. Choice of law - again, mentions Apple specifically, and discriminates against everyone else. 2. Someone whined that it discriminates Quebecians by requiring them to deal with a contract in English. Big flame war. Not a serious objection. Daniel Ted Kaehler <Ted(a)SqueakLand.org> wrote: > > --Boundary_(ID_qfGHNesfNEXc7SLju4EUeQ) > Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii > Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > > <!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> > <html><head><style type="text/css"></style><title>Re: [Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems > possible</title></head><body> > <div>Folks,</div> > <div><x-tab>        </x-tab>I am > glad to hear that Apple seems to be cooperative.</div> > <div><br></div> > <blockquote type="cite" cite>Daniel described it quite good - we are > not aiming to go in the</blockquote> > <blockquote type="cite" cite>direction of FSF (How come a lot of you > guys think this? I have no idea</blockquote> > <blockquote type="cite" cite>where this notion is coming from.) but in > the "opposite direction",</blockquote> > <blockquote type="cite" cite>which means even more BSDish than the > current license.</blockquote> > <div><br></div> > <div><x-tab>        </x-tab>Glad to > hear this.</div> > <div><br></div> > <blockquote type="cite" cite>The Apple Software is pre-release, and > untested, or not fully tested.</blockquote> > <blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote> > <blockquote type="cite" cite>The 'Font' language is another area of > 'state' which can change.</blockquote> > <div><br></div> > <div><x-tab>        </x-tab>Thank > you for the list of things wrong with the current license.  I > like details.  Please be more specific about what you'd like to > see changed.</div> > <div><br></div> > <div><x-tab>        </x-tab>Exactly > what is the problem with indemnification?  What is wrong with the > licensee promising not to sue Apple, given that the system is not > coming directly from Apple?  If we added a clause saying that the > licensee promises not to sue the Oxfam relief fund, would that make > the license bad?</div> > <div><br></div> > <div><x-tab>        </x-tab>On the > subject of export, AFAIK everything licensed by any US company is > subject to the restrictions listed in this clause. </div> > <div><br></div> > <blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Geneva" color="#000000">Apple > Software may not be exported or reexported (i) into (or to a national > or resident of) any U.S. embargoed country or (ii) to anyone on the > U.S. Treasury Department's list of Specially Designated Nationals or > the U.S. Department of Commerce's Table of Denial > Orders.</font></blockquote> > <div><br></div> > <div>While you might remove this clause, all software generated in the > US is subject to it.  Apple can't change that.  Any Debian > or OSI OpenSource licensed software that originated in the US has the > same restriction.</div> > <div><br></div> > <div>What other parts are you proposing to change?</div> > <div><br></div> > <div>--Ted.</div> > <div><br></div> > </body> > </html> > > --Boundary_(ID_qfGHNesfNEXc7SLju4EUeQ) > MIME-version: 1.0 > Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > > _______________________________________________ > Squeakfoundation mailing list > Squeakfoundation(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation > > --Boundary_(ID_qfGHNesfNEXc7SLju4EUeQ)--

1 0

RE: [Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible
by Daniel Vainsencher 03 Apr '03

03 Apr '03

Andreas, let's review the facts. Cees has already talked to Apple. You may want to undo that, but that's impossible, whatever you convince us of. The good news is, on the surface, they don't seem that unfriendly. Which may be a ruse, but then life itself might be an illusion, it's empty speculation. The people that have mentioned the sleeping lions are Alan, Ted, Andrew (IIRC). Goran and I were *answering that*. I agree there is some risk, and as Alan and yourself have put it, there always is. Fine, to the extent to which we have no choice, we'll live with it. No current Guides have expressed a wish to entangle the Squeak image with GPLed code. We couldn't stop other people from posting such code on SM if we wanted, but that's fine, there doesn't be any reason to do so. What we (or at least I) do wish to do, is end up with a license that's up to the standards accepted by free software/open source developers today. This both to broaden cross-fertilization with them, and benefit from what wisdom those standards encode (including a lot of lawyer time). Those standards are up at www.debian.org (my personal favorite) and www.opensource.org. Now, what exactly about this picture don't you like? can you explain what you would want different? Daniel Andreas Raab <andreas.raab(a)gmx.de> wrote: > Gran, > > > I know that. What I meant is that I think it is better to > > approach Apple and straighten this out once and for all. > > The "once and for all" part is exactly where you are wrong. Even if Apple > would change the license there is absolutely nothing you can do to prevent > them from *trying* to revoke it a couple of years down the road. Don't you > think that Squeak-L was considered a "once and for all" solution at the time > it was written? > > > This way I would know that we have a license that Apple > > approves of > > Excuse me but Apple _has_ approved of the current license - they made it! > > > and that may also turn out slightly better than the one > > we have now. Of course, they can change their minds in > > the future after that, but that would be much less > > likely. > > And on what exactly do you base your opinion here? Squeak-L was made for all > the purposes you are mentioning, done by Apple. Now, a couple of years > later, you state some concerns which are based on no facts whatsoever. So if > we take this a couple of years down the road then someone else might have > very similarly unfounded objections. This is just paranoid. > > > The alternative, which Ted implies - is that the Lion is > > sleeping and we shouldn't disturb it because the Lion may > > be in a bad mood. *If* Ted is right about the "mood" part > > - which information from Cees contradicts - then I would > > like a confrontation now, instead of putting more time into > > Squeak and "live in fear" of the Lion awakening. > > Yeah, and play the bull in the china shop. Great idea. > > > More clear what I meant? > > It is clear what you mean but that doesn't mean I agree with a single word > you're saying. It is paranoid no matter how you put it and you seem to be > willing to risk an open confrontation out of those (completely unjustified) > objections. And if you guys screw this up then the entire community will > have to live with the consequences of your paranoia. > > - Andreas > > _______________________________________________ > Squeakfoundation mailing list > Squeakfoundation(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation

2 1

Re: Sublicensing seems possible
by Daniel Vainsencher 01 Apr '03

01 Apr '03

1. No, I think your questions are mostly to the point. But you did directly ask Andrew. I have also in the past sometimes failed to get an answer from Andrew, either getting one that didn't answer what I meant (which I assume was misunderstanding), or not getting one at all. Andrew owes me nothing, of course, I'm just saying we shouldn't take this either personally or as very surprising. 2. I'm sorry, I simply got tired :-(. Though it may seem otherwise, I find it a pain to think about these license/legal issues. Cees, did you get an answer about posting your conversation log with Apple? Everybody, as Andrew said, if we want to change the license, we need some concensus. So let's hear people. I want to bring this to squeak-dev after we have some well worked out options. The list as I see it is below. If you want to help bring this to closure, develop the option you prefer. Daniel 1. SqueakL is fine. I don't want to hear about these license anymore. 2. OSI compliance is good. (someone else is welcome to represent this position) 3. DFSG compliant is good. We want to be able to distribute Squeak through Debian. We want to recruit people that work on free software for fun. We want people to use Squeak knowing it's safe, because it is free software. goran.hultgren(a)bluefish.se wrote: > Hi all and Andrew! > > (since I didn't want to revive this thread on squeak-dev I CCed Andrew > since I am not sure Andrew is on the SqF-list) > > Two very simple questions: > > 1. Are my questions that I posted (see > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/squeak/message/58816 among others) so > stupid that they aren't worth replying to? If they are then please > people, *say* so. That way I can shut up and stop making a fool of > myself by asking questions and being ignored. > > 2. Are we simply going to drop this ball just like we do every time it > is brought up? And I am not only talking about changing Squeak-L, most > of the issues at hand are about how we handle license questions in the > new package oriented Squeak. > > There you all go, short and to the point! :-) > > I just want to know because I don't want to spend time asking questions > and trying to straighten out how these things should work if my views > and questions aren't taken seriously and I am being ignored. > > regards, Göran > _______________________________________________ > Squeakfoundation mailing list > Squeakfoundation(a)lists.squeakfoundation.org > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation

2 1

3.6 Release Plan ( Was: RE: [Squeakfoundation]3.6 MasterPlanner!? )
by Brent Vukmer 01 Apr '03

01 Apr '03

Here's my suggestion -- 4/7 - 4/13 ALPHA Bug Fixes Archive harvest-fest by the community 4/14 - 4/20 Removal scripts for apps that were integrated with 3.4 ( Scamper, etc. ) --With each 'removal' update, we should update the Welcome window to say "load this package from SqueakMap". --Each 'removal' update should be accompanied by an 'install' script registered on SqueakMap Sanity checks; unit testing; x-app testing 4/21 - 6/15 Craig's simulator fixes Anthony's runtime enhancements (broken out separately from his closure compiler) Merge in MCP work Merge in KCP work "magicShrink" from the Squat project Networking/Streams/Sockets framework enhancements? File framework enhancements? 6/16 - 7/13 BETA Rebuild after the aftershocks settle down... :) -Fixes for bugs in stuff submitted during alpha phase More harvesting Sanity checks; unit testing; x-app testing 7/14 - 7/31 GAMMA Final harvesting Package for final release

1 0

3.6 MasterPlanner!?
by goran.hultgren＠bluefish.se 01 Apr '03

01 Apr '03

Hi all! Well, it seems we lost a thread here somewhere. 3.6 is starting up and we really need to have a Plan for it. No, don't say "we need no plan, just a date" because that just isn't true. We need *both* IMHO. 3.6 is really going to shake things around so I repeat - We Really Do Need A Plan - ok? Good, now that we have that out of the way :-) we also quickly realize that to get a plan we need someone who crafts it. No, don't say "we don't want somebody telling us what to do" because that isn't the way it should be done. The plan should of course be worked out on squeak-dev through discussions (as always) but somebody needs to moderate, collect and formulate it. So, without further ado - who takes this assignment? I have the following suggestions: - Ned. But Ned is worth so much more doing harvesting (?) or other complex debugger-digging, and I don't think Ned really "likes" the moderation role! :-) - Tim. Tim has a lot of good knowledge when it comes to the tougher big enhancements we have lined up in front of us possibly in part for 3.6 (think Anthony), what do you say Tim? - Me and Doug. Since Daniel (otherwise an obvious choice) has indicated that he isn't interested (I got that through "readsay") the last alternative is a combination of me and Doug. We tend to agree on most things and we are already lined up to take this assignment if Ned and Tim says no. Note: I didn't propose Craig here becuase I think he is busy with Squat etc and not really interested in this. Just a guess. Ok, so lets be quick here - Ned, Tim or Me+Doug? And please don't start discussing the need for someone doing this - Doug wants someone and he *is* in charge of the update stream so darnit, just accept the fact that we need someone doing this. :-) As soon as we have this decided the MasterPlanner(s) should probably IMO start a quick "round up" thread on squeak-dev to collect ideas on what 3.6 will/should/could be made of. regards, Göran

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Squeakfoundation April 2003