Brad Fuller wrote:
> Instead of 'standard packages', what if there was an image consisting of the 
> fundamental classes required -- the basic building blocks for all images. 

This is basically what we have today and it doesn't work. There is too 
much power concentrated in the hands of whoever "owns" that image; it 
*will* get abused for personal / project interests. Secondly, because 
it's an image it needs to take a stand on a variety of issues that 
people can reasonably disagree about. For example, whether m17n support 
should be part of that image. Or whether traits should be. Or whether a 
new compiler should be. And lastly, when the disagreement about any of 
these aspects arises, the only thing that anyone can do is to fork. 
Which gets us precisely where we are today: to the point where it's 
effectively impossible to collaborate on the parts that you agree on but 
stay separate on those parts that you disagree.

An image simply cannot address these issues because I'm not proposing 
(and not inclined to) collaborate on an actual artifact. I'm proposing 
to collaborate on a set of libraries that are of common interest.

Cheers,
   - Andreas