On Sun July 22 2007 9:54 pm, Andreas Raab wrote:
> 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.

Perhaps, but I don't see it.  If it's a group of individuals that are charged 
with core requirements, why would they abuse it? I don't see that sort of 
animosity here. Maybe there is and I don't see it. 

> 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. 

Yes, I agree that it would be difficult to determine. That's why I suggested 
to get back to the basic ST-80 features (but with the bug fixes (etc) that 
Squeak today encompasses.) 
I know the problem are the edges, though.

> And lastly, when the disagreement about any of 
> these aspects arises, the only thing that anyone can do is to fork.

That doesn't have to be. There could be some clear rules that we follow of 
what to do in those cases. It could be as simple as not including the portion 
that people are disagreeing to. Or there could be a process where it's 
brought before more people to help decide. There are a lot of possibilities.


> 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.

To me, it sounds more of a social issue and not a technical one (not that 
there are not technical hurdles.)


> 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