Actually, note that the process is (somewhat) new, and other than some
fixes when things squeaked (;-) hasn't had too much discussion. So of
course new viewpoints are appreciated. 

However - note that in this kind of endeavour (actually in many others
too), the benefits of many reasonable seeming policies can be
outweighted by their (sometimes indirect and hard to predict) costs if
they turn people off doing the work. So if you're interested in
improving it, you really should experience it first (read all the docs, review
someone else fix, try to get it resolved. Submit a fix/enh, get someone
to review it, until it is closed or approved). 

I'm sure there are many things that could be done to improve the
process, and I for one would love to hear them, but they really need to
be clever and careful about  use of precious resources, especially
people's time.

Daniel

"Brad Fuller" <brad at sonaural.com> wrote:
> Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 13:21:55 -0700
> From: "Brad Fuller" <brad at sonaural.com>
> Subject: RE: How to improve Squeak
> To: "'The general-purpose Squeak developers list'" <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> envelope-to: danielv at localhost
> delivery-date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 23:51:12 +0300
> organization: Sonaural Audio Studios
> reply-to: The general-purpose Squeak developers list <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> 
>  
> > On Jul 11, 2004, at 2:47 PM, Brad Fuller wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > What is the criteria and approval process of being in the 
> > base image?
> > 
> > The approval process (Harvesting Process) is pretty much covered here:
> > 
> > http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/3152
> > 
> > Note that there aren't really strictly defined criteria for 
> > something to be allowed in the base image, other than 
> > approval/review from one or more harvesters and other 
> > volunteers.  However, most of the things being discussed here 
> > (Squeak Server Pages, EventRecorderMorph, etc) pre-date the 
> > existence of the Harvesting Process anyway. (they were added 
> > earlier in the days of Squeak Central)
> > 
> > - Doug
> 
> Thanks Doug. I see now that the classes discussed here are before the
> Harvesting Process. However, they could go back through the Harvesting
> Process -- if this is the only formal process avaiable. At least they would
> meet the same criteria as any new one -- and they could be thrown out if
> need be.
> 
> But, in addition and more important: After reviewing this link, I don't have
> to tell you experienced ones that the approval process is somewhat of a
> problem from a quality standpoint. For instance, ONE harvester can "approve"
> a submission to be included in the image (and, it could be his/her own
> submission) -- there is no mandated peer review, or even a peer review
> process for that matter. I trust that everyone intimately understands the
> other issues and problems with this process.
> 
> 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.
> 
> brad