Hi Göran,

> > I was trying to give you an example here which is black and 
> > white enough so that you see what is meant by it.
> 
> So you want to introduce a substantial piece of new code adding new
> dependencies into the image?
> Not as a package outside of the image?
> Well, to me that just sounds ... dumb. But hey, what do I know.

Sigh. I gave an example, nothing more, nothing less. It's actually not quite
as far from what Josh' wrote about changing some of the eToy tiles.
Something like it may introduce dependencies and it is unfeasable to manage
this as a separate package quite yet. It may be dumb, yeah, but unless you
have an alternative it sure works! ;-)

> Of course we are harvesting bug fixes and improvements. Of course we
> must review them with the long term goal in mind. And of course new
> substantial pieces of code should preferrably be in packages 
> outside of the image. And of course all this has to be balanced as
> good as we can. And of course the Guides are listening to each and
> every post on the subjects at hand.

Thanks. It's nice to actually hear someone say that.

> When I said eToys and Dynabook I was referring to the ideas not the
> artifacts. I don't know the name on the "ideas" behind what you are
> doing with eToys.

You are right, it's hard to give those ideas names. It looks like I need to
answer your question ("what vision") differently because I interpreted it as
being focused on the artifact. Some reads for this vision (to stay really
close to Squeak) are, for example:

http://www.squeakland.org/author/index.html
http://www.squeakland.org/learn/index.html

Check it out sometime.

Cheers,
  - Andreas