Hi Gang,
    Exactly and well stated. Fork the artifact and you fork the community.
Fork the community and you fork the artifact. So, we now have three
artifacts and three communities: SqC, SqF, and StSq. This should be
interesting to watch. :-)
Cheers, Roger.....

"Andrew C. Greenberg" wrote:
> 
> >> That is, we are both looking inwards to discussing purposes and
> >> projects
> >> to support "Squeak the artifact" as opposed to looking outwards to
> >> purposes and projects to support "Squeak the community".  The two are
> >> naturally related, but the choice of perspective might have a profound
> >> influence on how we all think about the Squeak Foundation, as well as
> >> how the Squeak Foundation carries out its operations and sets its
> >> priorities.
> >
> > I would most certianly agree.  I think it is always better, perhaps
> > infinitely better, to support the community rather than "just" the
> > artifact that the community formed around.  The latter will come from
> > the former.
> 
> Excuse me, gentlemen, this is mere sophistry.  A seasoned advocate can
> trivially make the contrary argument with equally compelling rhetorical
> force.  But I'll spare you the demonstration, because to do so would be
> mere demagoguery -- indeed, mere pabulum.
> 
> The question is not "whether the artifact drives the community or the
> community drives the artifact?"  Even to attempt an answer (using an
> exclusive or)  is losing, for this is a fundamental principle of open
> source communities and, to use your terms, their "artifacts:"
> 
>         COMMUNITY AND ARTIFACT DEFINE ONE ANOTHER.
> 
> Put another way, the community and artifact are not only "naturally
> related," but are inherently intertwined.  At least for a viable
> community.

[snip]