On Apr 7, 2008, at 6:19 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
> I think , the main problem is more social than lack of manpower or
> funding: There is no high pressure from squeak community (and nobody
> having an ultimate power to force it) to abandon obsolete concepts,
> sacrifice ST-80 compatibility (partly) and move forward with system
> based on better design & modularity.

That's an interesting observation.  A lot of the popular scripting  
languages that move forward in sudden bursts are the ones with de- 
facto heads of state such as Larry Wall or Guido von Rossum.  These  
are people who are in a position to announce to the entire community  
that the next version is going down such-and-such path and that is  
simply the way it is because their language is defined by their  
personality, to some extent.

As an outsider, I see Squeak seeming to be trying to function under  
an ideal democratic model where there's really no leadership at all.   
Unfortunately, you can't please everyone all the time and expect any  
changes to occur.  Historically, you often need a single or small  
group of focused radicals in a position of power to effect change -  
for better or worse.  The board could be that group of radicals by  
doing things like getting together and redefining what "Squeak"  
actually means.  What it includes in an image.  What it looks like.   
How you use it.  They can do this by refusing any and all changes  
that do not further that new definition and by providing a quick path  
to remove code but a slow one to add it.  Actions like that could  
cause tensions and ultimately Squeak may fork - or a new board gets  
elected - but maybe that's okay, too.  They will have tried.  The  
board could take the initiative and fork themselves starting a  
"Squeak Classic" branch and redefining what "Squeak" means now and  
into the future as the "main" branch without having to hurt too many  
people's feelings along the way.

l8r
Sean