On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 10:11:09 +0200, Matthew Fulmer wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 09:51:01AM +0200, Klaus D. Witzel wrote:
>> If you promise to not take it personal: this is a question I often hear  
>> in
>> the marketing department: why do people click the old stuff when their
>> answers in the survey clearly point to the new stuff. Response from the
>> WWW guy: these are most likely different (sub-)communities and we have  
>> no
>> technical tools for relating individual downloaders with individual  
>> survey
>> participants. Have a tool?
>
> This is very true. This community is trying to go many different
> directions at once, but instead of give each subgroup a vehicle
> to go further faster, we put them in one huge room (squeak.org).
> This is why I think forks are very important for the community:
> give each subgroup the perfect tool for their task. Want a lean
> mean seaside developing machine? Pharo is the fork for you. Need
> to have a great experience building presentations with squeak?
> use etoys. Need to get a package as widely distributed as
> possible? LPF can help with that. Wanna just see what's
> available? FunSqueak is what you want.
>
> That mostly leaves squeak.org with blue-plane researchers, who
> mostly need a kernel image that they can build anything on.
>
> Identifying sub-communities and giving them an optimized squeak
> for their needs will help us stop bickering about what should or
> should not be in the squeak.org release, because, really, there
> is no image that will satisfy everybody. However, there are only
> a dozen or so sub-communities striving to emerge, and each will
> be quite happy with one or two images with the average of what
> the members of that subcommunity want.

I fully agree, thanks for this concise synopsis :) It looks like a start  
for rethinking organization top-down [no offense].