Dear Juan,
> Ok. So, what does that set of objectives and agenda say about:
> - Backwards compatiblity
We have had Installer, and LevelPlayingField for ages. The purpose of
which is to make some compatability possible between different images,
and ongoing changes to API's can be back ported to other images thus
preserving backwards compatability, and providing forwards compatability
where possible.

We have more backwards and forwards compatibility now than we ever had
before.

The crux of the difference between squeak and pharo philosophies has
been the issue of backwards compatability.
> - Removal (or not) of stuff
All tools we are using for 3.11 are not reliant upon a gui. This is
explicitly because the stated goal has been for at least 3 years to work
towards a kernel image, with which people can build up the custom image
that they want.
> - Addition (or not) of stuff
The proposal is to have a range of deliverables for different goals,
from minimal images to fully loaded images for testing.
> - Modularity
> - Any concrete statement (about the software, not the process!) so
> people can know what to expect
> ?
This statement has been that 4.0 would be as 3.10 with minimal changes
for relicencing purposes.

3.11 has been proposed as an image with minimal changes, that would be
proof of concept for the new process.

a) Readies the image for automated build and testing - i.e. release
early and often will be properly possible at last
b) Readies the image for our automated/open mantis integration for bug fixes
c) Hopefully includes atomic loading for making radical changes to the
image possible (i.e. new gui/compiler etc)
d) Readies the image for future releases that are assembled by a
selection of components, working to a design proposal rather than by an
infinite set of incremental changes by one or two control freaks.

(p.s. I need help someone to test and debug (c))

The actual "design" as to what 3.11 results in has been in the form of
executable code for over a year, in the ss/Tasks repository. This is
probably looking a bit stale now since I have been working on bob.
> When was it approved by the community or the elected leadership?
ages ago.

http://installer.pbworks.com/Squeak311Proposal
> Was there a decision process involving the community?
http://installer.pbworks.com/Squeak311


Keith