> -----Original Message-----
> From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
> [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On 
> Behalf Of Marcus Denker
> Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 2:51 PM
> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> Subject: Re: How to improve Squeak
> 
> 
> Am 11.07.2004 um 22:21 schrieb Brad Fuller:
> 
> >
> > Has a proposal been put forth in the past to improve this 
> process? I 
> > for one would like to see this tighter. Perhaps this is what Ramiro 
> > was pointing out in his "Magma" email.
> >
> >
> 
> I don't think it makes sense to thighten the process at this 
> point. I am aware that "shit happens" with the current process.
> 
> One simple example:  I am the one to blame to have accepted 
> the "asPlural" changeset.
> So, yes, dumb idea to approve that. Something like that happens.

One point to make here is that with a few safeguards, there wouldn't be
anyone to "blame". The proper process in the right setting would make sure
this doesn't happen. It doesn't mean that people can't have fun or that it
isn't agile. But, it could mean that Squeak would grow and be more
recognized and used by others. 
 
> But what's the alternative? Even with the "only one 
> harvester" rule, we don't manage to do *anything*
>   at all. Just look at BFAV: The amount of unreviewed stuff 
> is growing. 
> If we now require a real formal
> process beyond what we have now, I fear that nothing will 
> happen. (I actually would call the current state of progress 
> "nothing" already).

Quality shouldn't be reduced because the queue gets bigger. 
 
> To come back to the example: Don't forget that we strike for 
> a "fast moving agile" process. So even with me doing the 
> wrong thing (approving somthing that should not be approved), 
> the right thing nevertheless will happen in the long run, as 
> it did with the asPlural stuff.

Cool: I like that goal. Something for me to keep in mind.
 
> So to sum up: I don't think that making the process more 
> heavy-wheigt will be the solution.

I know you didn't suggest that I said this, but to be clear: I haven't
suggested any process, let alone a heavy-weight one. 

>         Marcus