SqF feedback

Daniel Vainsencher danielv at techunix.technion.ac.il
Fri Mar 3 11:22:30 UTC 2006


A. More ties with sibling communities:
- news about their progress,
- guides and up to date pointers to their releases (see the recent 
"which Squeakland should I use for..." discussion) and so forth.
- More visibility for the processes of code synchronization between us 
and them (some way people can quickly answer the question - what are we 
missing compared to <your favorite variant of squeak).
- More cross project "platform" discussion, to share opinions (and maybe 
even coordinate policy) about various changes to Squeak as a platform. 
Examples: adoption of ToolBuilder, Traits, OB vs traditional browser, 
annotations, Flow...
B. Action on the license front - a decision on a license policy. Since 
we're on the "what I'd like to see" - I think we should try to lower the 
percent of non-freely licensed code in the image:
- request that new packages be at least dual licensed MIT,
- Find out some conservative approximation of "who holds what 
copyrights", and relicense to MIT anything we can get consent for.
- Encourage people that are changing packages significantly (refactoring 
collections to use traits) to rewrite instead, and place it under a free 
license.
- have SqueakSource repositories have a "if you upload code here, by 
default it is under license ..." field per project, to make .
C. Continue improving Squeak governance - we now have an elected board, 
which is better than the previous modes of selection. However, the 
relation of this board to various aspects of Squeak is unclear:
- Who decides whether to push <your favorite disruptive change> into the 
current version?
- Relation to non-package-maintaining teams: who decides membership and 
scope of a team?
The important thing here is that we evolve/design the structure, so that 
it improves over time, rather than the sometimes arbitrary-seeming 
changes we've had in the past.


Daniel


stéphane ducasse wrote:

> Hi
>
> I'm reposting this email since I have the impression that the point  
> was lost in its original thread.
>
> ...
>     - Normally after election, politicians do not really listen 
> anymore and
>     I would like to do the inverse. I would really like to know what 
> you  expect
>     or would like to see put in place. We have some ideas (bounty  
> system, better process)
>     and I will really listen what the new boarders want to do (I'm 
> even  eager to see that :)).
>
> We do not have the monopole of good ideas,    
> so if you have some points that you would like to see happening  
> please mention it.
>
> Stef
>
>
>




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list