I agree with you and have been thinking about the implications of scratch
your own itch programming.  I firmly believe that this community would
benefit from listing to users and integrating user feedback into the
process.  We need to find a way to work together to meet the common goal of
relevance for each participating group.  There is a lot going on in the
community and I believe we would benefit from integrating the many itches
that are currently being scratched.  Past that we should be looking for ways
to better organize and incorporate user feedback into development teams.  (I
learned this valuable lesson in the business world: There is nothing worse
then spending valuable resources developing terrific features that nobody
really wants or needs).

I also believe that there are a number of programmers willing to participate
but are not able to lead these efforts mostly because of time constraints
(not ability).  We need a way to incorporate private company's
contributions, research projects, volunteer efforts, and user's needs into a
cohesive process that advances Squeak towards relevance.  I'm not sure how
we are going to get there, but it will be a very good place when we do.

Ron Teitelbaum
President / Principal Software Engineer
US Medical Record Specialists
Ron at USMedRec.com 

> From: Stéphane Rollandin
> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:10 AM
> 
> too often on this list we see questions or reports like "this feature is
> broken could it be fixed ?" or "that feature would be nice to have" that
> are only answered by a blunt (and in my view quite rude) "then are you
> ready to work on it ?".
> 
> I am tired of this trick. a more correct answer would be in the line of
> "nobody seems to be engaged in doing this, sorry".
> 
> I don't see the need to pressure people, especially publicly, and
> especially people who participate in the debate about the future of
> Squeak.
> 
> these people should better be thanked for their interest. they are
> contributing ideas and opinions, ok it's not code, but it's not
> valueless either.
> 
> 
> regards,
> 
> Stef