Russell Penney wrote:

> Ah I know what the issue is; there are contradictions in what you are saying
> now and previous emails by you, others in the islands group and other in
> influence. 

By the way, how many squeak-related lists are there at the moment? I 
know of squeak-dev (which I read more frequently since Cees shrinking 
experiences), squeak-ev (german squeakers list), tweak and, only partly 
squeak related smallwiki and seaside. Islands? Another list about an 
ongoing squeak development? Also, there are squeaksource (not every 
interesting package gets announced) and some other (more or less 
private) squeaksource servers. Additionally, one should check the 
minnow-squeak swiki changes from time to time.

The question which comes to my mind: would some kind of "squeakdot.org" 
or "Zack's squeak summary" (okay, we'll not have to find a Zack, just 
making the link to this other huge opensource-thingy related mailing 
list) just add another point of interest you'll have to check, or could 
it be some kind of: "See, that's this months new high points of 
interested, so if you want to catch up with the latest movement, you 
propably want to check here, here and here"?

I would do it now, but first I'm on a GPRS line (and I don't wanna have 
to code java for food, so I'll have to look at my transfers till may), 
second I don't want to create another one of this squeak related "setup 
done and forgotten ever since - just another thing to show how useful it 
is to fire up background tabs in your browser from google and close them 
as fast as you've opened them"-sites, third: I maybe missed the thing 
that it's already there.

I made a break with squeak during writing my diploma-thesis, and tried 
to catch up a year. Hm, what should I say? It's a bit like this weblog 
phenomenon (and yes, I have my own). Everyone wants his very own, but at 
one point, adding some value to World, it decreases it because the cost 
of categorizing a snip of information as "worthwile" or "not 
interesting" raises faster than the gain you'll get by combining the 
given information and make knowledge of it.

(Hmm, re-reading, I think I give more arguments against it. What do you 
think?)

-- 
http://reauktion.de/archer/