Ok, I'll give it a go.

> 1. What are your biggest hurdles preventing you from contributing to Squeak?

Other priorities.

> 2. What would it take for you to contribute more?

Money.

> 3. What are your expectations in regard to contributions?

I expect folks to take responsibility for their contributions.  If I
break something, then I have affected the lives of my friends on this
list, so it is imperative that I step up, take responsibility, and
address the situation ASAP.  Late in the 4.1 process, the Lexicon
(Protocol) browser got badly broken; and I didn't feel the party whose
change caused the breakage (which, I don't even know who it was and I
don't care at this point) was the same party who stepped up and
covered for them.

Other than the above point, I would say, no expectations can be made
of volunteers.  Equally important, *volunteers* cannot expect that
their work will be automatically accepted by the community and
integrated into Squeak.

>From this aspect, the only way to guarantee Squeak moving forward is
to adopt a policy of distributed harvestation that does not depend on
these expectations.  A system of contribution where Squeak (and
contributors) can selectively-harvest, back-and-forth, where each
party (contributor and Squeak) can adopt a policy of "mutual
selfishness" and still progress forward.

> 4. What are the reasons behind the low level of contributions from
> other community members, according to you?

I wouldn't know to characterize it as "low".  However, if the question
is, "what are the reasons the level of contributions from other
community members isn't higher, according to you?" then I would say,
first, "I don't know", second, "it depends on each individuals
situation" and, third, "because a system of mutually-selfish
contribution and harvestation isn't perfected yet."

> 5. What would you improve in order to increase the number of
> contributions and the number of contributors?

Make Squeak more useful, interesting, and graphically stimulating.  I
think (too) many folks are motivated by simple cosmetics.  But hey, if
it works...

I don't mean to be too philosophical, but for someone to "decide" to
make a contribution, it means, by defiinition, that Squeak was useful
and *interesting* enough for them to attempt to harvest from it what
they needed for their own selfish purposes.  If a process is in place
which allows (the general parts of) their work to be back-harvested
into Squeak, then voila, you have a "contributor".

The *number* of contributions is not really a concern to me as much as
*which* and the *quality* of contributions made.

> 6. How would you rate your sense of social identification to the
> Squeak community, on a scale from 1 to 10. (1 is the lowest, 10 the
> highest)

7.

> 7. What is your rating based on?

My familiarity with the individuals and personalities on the various
mailing lists.

> 8. Anything else?

 - Chris