+1 

I think it would be good to have a more formal process.  It would be nice if
we could have a single place to go to see what is going on, who is working
on what and if there is any progress.  I like the idea of organizing around
current contributions and providing a structure so that everyone can
understand the process of harvesting changes for adoption in the main image.


It would also, as Andreas suggested, be a good idea to voice support for
activities in process, so that those efforts can be encouraged and supported
by anyone with spare time before adoption is considered.  

Beyond that each team gains momentum and organization in its own way and it
seems to me that persuading the community in any direction is very
difficult.  I have seen really cool stuff evolve by itself.  

So my suggestion is push for organization but accept the chaos that is
Squeak.

Ron Teitelbaum 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-
> bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Andreas Raab
> Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 3:05 PM
> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> Subject: Re: Roadmap proposal for 3.10/4.0
> 
> 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
>