I find that these comments are indeed more towards what Keith has been saying all along.

And I find that Keith's posts have always made positive sense from a point of view of the long term good of the Squeak Community.
These goals are a big part of what he has in mind.
He has done a massive amount of work to this end. With help, the processes could be improved and streamlined.

To those that accuse him of not listening, or of having a poor attitude, I say they had better look really, really seriously at their own listening skills and attitudes.

To me, Keith is showing real insight and leadership for the good of the Squeak Community as a whole.
His ideas and work deserve far better treatment than the community is currently showing.

I am sure there are far more people in the community that can also see this but are not speaking up.

Ken G. Brown

At 5:54 PM +0200 7/15/09, Nicolas Cellier apparently wrote:
>My understanding is all are insterested in sharing some bug fixes,
>Kernel improvments, Cog closure and VM improvments, light weight Cuis
>widget improvments, etc...
>
>Nicolas
>
>2009/7/15 Ian Trudel <ian.trudel at gmail.com>:
>> The title of this discussion is "Cross fork development model" and I'd
>> like to bring it back for a second. Your attention, please.
>>
>> My understanding is there are no official statement from any fork in
>> effect that they are willing to be involved into such cross fork
>> efforts. They might or might not be interested to rebranch with Squeak
>> at later time. Except, perhaps, people from Etoys expressed some
>> interest in this idea.
>>
>> The question arise to know whether or not the leaders of other forks
>> are hand-in-hand with Squeak Oversight Board to ensure the viability
>> of this effort.
>>
>> Provided that it would not be the case, why on earth are we wasting
>> time on this while the community have more pressing needs?
>>
>> Ian.
>> --
>> http://mecenia.blogspot.com/
>>
>>