I think the resistance we see is simply people were caught off guard. 
(it makes for exciting reading, though!) When there is no infrastructure 
nor rules in place to facilitate leadership change, someone has to rise 
to the soapbox and exclaim this very fact -- and then (hopefully) try to 
do something about it.  From what I've seen, I think the crew (Göran, 
Doug, Cees, Marcus, Michael) have all best intentions to make Squeak 
*successful*. I don't know why they would otherwise. All power to them.

What does *successful* mean? -- that is the question. What does the end 
product look like? OK, I agree the image progresses... but, what do the 
releases look like?  What problems are to be solved? How does each 
problem get solved -- what are the processes to finalize a release? 
Heck, just defining these within a structure that would accomplish their 
goals would go a long way. It just seems to take a lot of time to get 
anything done today ( I wrote several messages about the Harvesting 
process about 9-12 months ago. But, I didn't get much agreement.)

I sincerely embrace any change that would make Squeak commercially 
usable in the multimedia world AND to fix the current issues (you know, 
the bugs, the documentation -- those everyday issues)
Example: I see audio people come in and look at Squeak and then after 
evaluation leave and use something else. (Siren is a good example)  I 
want to keep those people and help make Squeak more usable for audio! 
(Yes, I'm happy to contribute, but I'm just a baby-squeaker right now. 
But I will -- I'm just trying to get the graphical widgets working!)

Perhaps the first order of business is to propose an infrastructure for 
this leadership --- maybe the rules of the clubhouse. And then obtain 
agreement on what constitutes the current issues and prioritize them and 
get them done (perhaps this is stéphane's "agenda".) It's not 
rocket-surgery.  Current roadmaps can be used. Fact:  there has been a 
lot of work already on the "what" to do part. It's the "how" to get it 
done and then really accomplishing the plans that seems to be the issue.

brad


stéphane ducasse wrote:

> Hi goran
>
> I think that we should proceed by example :)
> So your group should propose an agenda and people will evaluate
> and will certainly agree.
>
> I think that we cannot continue like that with no process at all.
> Else this means that really the changes you sent will *NEVER* be 
> considered.
>
> So before shouting and judging you, I want to see what you will do.
> And I hope that others will do the same. Because this is easy to send
> mails but where have you been commiting on Squeak.
>
> Just an IMPORTANT POINT:
> I wrote
>         -one book in french on SQUEAK
>         -one book in english on SQUEAK
>         -translated the book of kim in french
>         -columns on SQUEAK
>         -harvested code
>         -tried to bring communication between Tweak/Squeak/....
>     I'm writing new columns on squeak on linuxMag
>         -do squeak demoes everywhere I can
>         -push the SSUG/SqueakNic/FSUG
>         -will start a new Smalltalk group
>         -organize ESUG
>         -push SqF
>
> So I ACCEPT THAT SOME PEOPLE SPEND SOME OF THEIR ENERGY
> HELPING SQUEAK TO GET A PROCESS. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT
> THERE ARE IDIOT AND WILL SCREW UP SQUEAK!
>
> Stef
>
>
>
>


-- 
________________________________
Hear us online: www.Sonaural.com
Brad Fuller
(408) 799-6124
** Sonaural Audio Studios **
(408) 799-6123  West San Jose
(408) 799-6124  Cambrian