>> 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.

In an open source world, the artifact joins and defines the community.  
Just  as surely, the community defines the artifact.  This is because of 
what we are -- of what is an open source community: a community 
comprising those who are concerned with a program they program.  It is 
because the word "program" is both NOUN and VERB.

Projects and communities that enjoyed these synergies prospered.  Those 
projects and communities who have not became irrelevant.  It is as 
grievous an error to rationalize a dangerously  conservative posture 
regarding the artifact on the theory that the artifact --as is-- defines 
the community as it is to rationalize an unconcionably unnecessary fork 
on the theory that the artifact is irrelevant if it is not changed to 
serve some special interest identified for particular purposes as "the 
community."

If we try to define the community with words approximating a functional 
specification at any level, we have already lost.  As such, it leads to 
hopeless and divisive advocacy -- and eats at the core of a community.  
I am not saying you are right or wrong.  I am saying that THIS argument 
is pointless, possibly harmful, and disserves community and artifact 
equally.

Let us define our community by our dynamic and limitless good works.  It 
is time to write much less political prose and write much more code and 
documentation.  All of us.  Let our works (meaning both the efforts and 
the products), not our words, define us.