Great idea.  We also need some kind of list (on a website) that shows what 
things are out there that need work, so people looking for something to do 
know where to look.  I know the bug reports provide this a little, but I 
really see a bug list as something different then a "needed features" list.


>From: Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de>
>Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers 
>list<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>To: The general-purpose Squeak developers 
>list<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>Subject: Re: Roadmap proposal for 3.10/4.0
>Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 12:04:44 -0700
>
>I don't know what other people think, but these long feature lists just 
>give me the shivers. What if instead of listing feature X, Y, and Z (on 
>many of which the implementation hasn't even started) we simply have a 
>schedule that says:
>
>a) Open discussion: Two months of determining what's ready to go into the 
>next release. At the end of the that period there should be a list of 
>things that we'd like to have in the next release.
>
>b) Alpha phase: Two months of "getting stuff in" for those things that we 
>agreed upon in the first phase. At the end of this phase, any new feature 
>that isn't in yet, won't get in.
>
>c) Beta phase: Two months of testing, fixing bugs updating the docs and 
>packages at Squeakmap. At the end of which we have a new release.
>
>Six months, and it should be done. With clear deadlines what is expected to 
>happen when. With proposals made by the people who have done the work 
>already. With work that is already finished and only needs inclusion 
>instead of stuff on which work hasn't even begun yet.
>
>Cheers,
>   - Andreas
>