Re: 3.6 MasterPlanner!?

> [email protected] wrote:
> > 
> > ...
> > Ok, so lets be quick here - Ned, Tim or Me+Doug? And please don't start
> > discussing the need for someone doing this - Doug wants someone and he
> > *is* in charge of the update stream so darnit, just accept the fact that
> > we need someone doing this. :-)

Ok, since neither Ned, Tim nor Craig volunteered for this task, I think we
should go with the Goran+Doug master planner plan, so we can move forward.  I
can understand that no one might jump at volunteering for this particular
task... it could make one rather unpopular.  But if it's going to be
Goran+Doug, I can simply blame Goran for any poor decisions. ;-)

> > As soon as we have this decided the MasterPlanner(s) should probably IMO
> > start a quick "round up" thread on squeak-dev to collect ideas on what
> > 3.6 will/should/could be made of.

Um, yes.  You can start that up if you'd like.

One thing about the plan that I think we have agreed on to some extent is the
4-month time period, and the notion that the release date would generally be
more firm than the release content.  When I proposed this, there was some
agreement, and no disagreement.  With the First Fridays system, the release
date would be August 1st.  So, if there are no last-minute disagreements,
let's consider this part of the plan as set in stone.

Other than that, I think Daniel's list of items below is a good start.  Some
items such as the "simulator fixes by Craig" might even be a finer level of
granularity than is necessary for a release plan.  Most bug fixes do not
really need to be in the plan.  However, if the simulator fixes are
large/significant fixes, then sure, we can include them in the plan.

Items I might add to the list are:

* Apply some number of package removals to the image.  (Perhaps you were
taking this one for granted.)  I don't think we should try to plan exactly
which ones will be removed, but we could set a rough goal of a certain number
of MB removed from the image, perhaps.
* Remove the Apple fonts from the image, and replace them with functionally
similar bitmap fonts.  We would still need to decide whether this meant the
Accufonts, or a move to ISO-8859-1.

- Doug



Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> 
> Ok, Goran, I can see when I'm beaten :-)
> 
> Since I'm still not interested in taking this as a fixed role, and
> you've decided it's needed, I don't mind if you and Doug (or someone
> else) take it up. Heck, I'll even help along occaisonally. While I'm at
> it, I'll try to subvert it from a "Plan", to a "statement of the Guides
> perceived best direction for Squeak n.m" :-)
> 
> What do I think should happen in 3.6?
> 
> I think the most important thing for this version is not to get to a
> specific goal, but to get a few processes going. Here's a partial list.
> 
> * Restart harvesting using the new process, hopefully removing some
> backlog.
> * Get the simulator fixes by Craig back in.
> * Start merging Anthony's work. Run time stuff is a good place to start.
> * Start merging MCP's work, as they start to send it to us. Same for
> KCP, except I for one am less aware of what they're working on, and have
> less of an idea as to whether they'll have something ready to merge
> anytime soon.
> * Networking/Streams/Sockets is something where a few people have put in
> quite a lot of work. Find a way to start merging at least some of this
> stuff, in small pieces. Ideally, we should do everything possible
> without breaking networking applications. Then break networking (start
> raising exceptions instead of dialogs) in 3.7alpha.
> * SM 1.1
> 
> Daniel
> 
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Hi all!
> >
> > Well, it seems we lost a thread here somewhere. 3.6 is starting up and
> > we really need to have a Plan for it.  No, don't say "we need no plan,
> > just a date" because that just isn't true.
> >
> > We need *both* IMHO. 3.6 is really going to shake things around so I
> > repeat - We Really Do Need A Plan - ok?
> >
> > Good, now that we have that out of the way :-) we also quickly realize
> > that to get a plan we need someone who crafts it. No, don't say "we
> > don't want somebody telling us what to do" because that isn't the way it
> > should be done.
> >
> > The plan should of course be worked out on squeak-dev through
> > discussions (as always) but somebody needs to moderate, collect and
> > formulate it. So, without further ado - who takes this assignment?
> >
> > I have the following suggestions:
> >
> > - Ned. But Ned is worth so much more doing harvesting (?) or other
> > complex debugger-digging, and I don't think Ned really "likes" the
> > moderation role! :-)
> >
> > - Tim. Tim has a lot of good knowledge when it comes to the tougher big
> > enhancements we have lined up in front of us possibly in part for 3.6
> > (think Anthony), what do you say Tim?
> >
> > - Me and Doug. Since Daniel (otherwise an obvious choice) has indicated
> > that he isn't interested (I got that through "readsay") the last
> > alternative is a combination of me and Doug. We tend to agree on most
> > things and we are already lined up to take this assignment if Ned and
> > Tim says no.
> >
> > Note: I didn't propose Craig here becuase I think he is busy with Squat
> > etc and not really interested in this. Just a guess.
> >
> > Ok, so lets be quick here - Ned, Tim or Me+Doug? And please don't start
> > discussing the need for someone doing this - Doug wants someone and he
> > *is* in charge of the update stream so darnit, just accept the fact that
> > we need someone doing this. :-)
> >
> > As soon as we have this decided the MasterPlanner(s) should probably IMO
> > start a quick "round up" thread on squeak-dev to collect ideas on what
> > 3.6 will/should/could be made of.
> >
> > regards, Göran
> > _______________________________________________
> > Squeakfoundation mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
From [email protected] Sat Apr 05 02:40:12 2003
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: (qmail 15543 invoked from network); 5 Apr 2003 02:40:12 -0000
Received: from mail.gmx.net (213.165.65.60)
  by mail.theinternetone.net with SMTP; 5 Apr 2003 02:40:12 -0000
Received: (qmail 26989 invoked by uid 65534); 5 Apr 2003 02:40:11 -0000
Received: from pD9533734.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO atlantis) (217.83.55.52)
  by mail.gmx.net (mp007-rz3) with SMTP; 05 Apr 2003 04:40:11 +0200
From: "Andreas Raab" <[email protected]>
To: "'Discussing the Squeak Foundation'"
	<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [Squeakfoundation]Re: Sublicensing seems possible
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 04:39:58 +0200
Message-ID: <000801c2fb1c$a68279e0$8ef7fea9@atlantis>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-BeenThere: [email protected]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
	<[email protected]>
List-Id: Discussing the Squeak Foundation
 <squeakfoundation.lists.squeakfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lnx-12.ams-2.theinternetone.net/pipermail/squeakfoundation>
List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation>,
	<mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 02:40:12 -0000

> That could actually be a problem in some cases. Say developer X=20
> releases some system changes as required but insists on the GPL. They=20
> have been publically released but are effectively unusable within the=20
> main system. And I suppose that in a sense it would 'block' us from=20
> implementing the same thing unless one could prove it clean. Ugly.=20
> Perhaps we need to assert that 'publically available' is=20
> interpreted as 'usable in the main public image'.

I disagree. If there are people who have RMS' point of view about free
software they should be allowed to do good stuff and place it under any
license they want. Contrary to RMS' that's my understanding of "freedom"
(but not my understanding of "Squeak community"). Changing this, =
effectively
making Squeak-L viral, would be in direct violation of the goals of =
Squeak-L
- it's the *ideas* that count not the artifacts.

Regarding "blocking". Not even the GPL can prevent you from =
reimplementing
ideas you find in free software. So you can't use the code - so what? =
It's
unfortunate but nothing that would prevent someone from implementing the
same idea in a fraction of the time needed to come up with it. As with =
all
things, having the original idea in the first place is the truly complex
act. If that idea is shared it's typically trivial to re-implement it.=20

Quoting a question from SIGGRAPH paper reviews: "Could a skilled
grad-student implement the system/process based on the paper?". If you =
get a
"No" here you're out.

Cheers,
  - Andreas