[Squeakfoundation]Order of business ...

[squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org]

Hi Guides (fellow Squeakers in the audience? ;-)

Three issues we should start moving on, IMO:
1. Process to take physical ownership of updates. 
 * Scott/SqC - do you have any remaining agenda for 3.4a/3.2.1, to
settle before handing over the "keys"?
 * Scott, are you interested in some role (as vaguely ;-) postulated by
goran, or otherwise) under the guidance (sic) of us Guides?
 * If neither of the above, can you explain the current existing tools
in the image for handling this and the required resources, so we can
plan a clean transition?

I assume basically we'll need some public readable, Guides writeable
storage space on updates.squeakfoundation.org, and a final update on
both all current servers and versions that changes the urls currently in
the image. Am I missing something?

2. Start planning the next release, in terms of content. 
 * I'll start a thread on the squeak-dev list to hear what people think.
I'll also outline the process for posting refactorings as I sent to you
guys on the internal "Re: Fwd: Re: Image factoring" thread, and see what
people think.
 * Doug, we need to know what's currently on the table of the former
Harvesters group, so we can decide what to integrate, what to reject,
and what to punt to the list and SM.
 * If you guys have directions you want the image to take in the near
term beyond what I summarized as "removing constraints", like a merge
plan to VI4, or whatever, I think now would be a good time to mention
it.
 * After we get some inputs from all these sources, I suggest we hash
out a basic release road map. As an initial sketch of it's shape (we'll
have actual content later) -
 3.4 - a quicky release to remove some constraints and test our process
for refactoring and removing a few obvious applications from Squeak.
 3.5 - a slightly longer release to optimize and continue the process,
stabilize our work tools.
 4.0 - New image format...

3. VI4/Jitter. Tim, you've mentioned a few times on the list that some
VI4 changes may be incompatible with J5. I'm getting those too-familiar,
unpleasent "we're not communicating and may be heading for some bad
feelings" vibes. Could you, Ian, and Anthony talk business, hash it out
and give us some nice bright future for this? I think the transition to
VI4 will still need quite a bit of work, and J5 compatibility is the
major risk I see, it would be nice to know what we're doing about it.

Daniel