Re: Where Squeak is Headed [was: Module discussion]

Hi Gang,

Apparently, the day has finally arrived when "SqC" is going to mean 
"Squeak
Community", rather than "Squeak Central", as the primary driver behind 
the
Squeak project.

Hopefully, the New Management is up to the task, and then some. To the 
list
indicated below, I would nominate Daniel Vainsencher. Dan, are you 
interested?

Cheers, Roger......

On Thursday, Nov 7, 2002, at 23:52 America/Denver, Dan Ingalls wrote:

> Folks -
>
> Just for purposes of my own planning, I have been chatting with others 
> at SqC recently about where we are and where we should be heading.

[snip]

>  Kim and Pat continue to help Alan hold the fort at Viewpoints 
> Research.

[snip]

> John Maloney, who had stayed on at Disney after the rest of us left, 
> has finally left also and is now working with Mitch Resnick's group at 
> MIT.

[snip]

> Scott, Ted, Michael and I are all doing various separate 
> Squeak-related projects on our own.

[snip]

> "Under new management"
> Michael shared with me one other topic raised at the OOPSLA BOF, but 
> not included in the public report.  Here's the wording I saw:
>
> 	"The suggestion is to hand management of the update stream over to a 
> group
> 	of experienced Squeakers. This group will manage the review and 
> publishing
>         process and have SqC as advisors in the background.
>         Candidates right now are Göran, Doug, Ned and Tim (you did volunteer,
>         didn't you? ;-) ). Volunteers, comments, vetos are welcome."
>
> Believe it or not, this, too, agrees with current SqC thinking.  I 
> think nothing could be more invigorating to our process going forward. 
>  Presumably the migration of essentially everything but the kernel 
> (and potentially even that) into SqueakMap will lead to territories 
> responsibly managed by those who know the most about them.  Beyond the 
> update process, some attention needs to be paid to the identification 
> of stable releases.  It is my experience that there are "propitious" 
> times for stable releases (generally on the eve of significant 
> changes), and I think it will behoove us to evolve an informal 
> mechanism for picking these times and a formal process for checking 
> that SqueakMap packages sync'ed to a stable release get some decent > QA.