I disagree on that one. I think that we can have a vision and create  
a group that works on that vision.
I do not see a problem even if people want to do something and fail.  
This does not mean that we
should not reasonable goals.

Removing Etoy for example, (even if pavel already did it is  
something) that could and should be done.

> It could end up being similar, but the main difference is that I'm  
> not willing to consider anything that hasn't been done already. Out  
> of that list there were two items that I would consider "ready for  
> inclusion" (which really means: ready for discussion), namely  
> Klaus' fix for the source code management and some of the fixes  
> that Pavel needs. None of the other items on the list are even  
> close to being considered ready for inclusion; on many of the items  
> work hasn't even started.
>
> And *if* any items on that list get done in the first two months we  
> can decide to include them. But I don't want to start out with a  
> long list of features that nobody has the time and the energy to  
> implement.
>
>> Don't get me wrong, a plan is a good thing to have I'm just trying  
>> to understand how you wont end up with a big list that will give  
>> you the shivers... :o)
>
> Simple: By strictly not doing anything "new" but rather only pick  
> from what's already there. The release process isn't the place to  
> start new projects, it's the place to select from the existing  
> projects those that should be part of the next release.
>
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas
>