Taking control of parts of Squeak

On Monday, February 24, 2003, at 05:17  AM, [email protected] 
wrote:

> So... unless there are many more "strongly against" :-) then I would
> like us to work out some form of "rules" for these core package
> maintainers. This is essentially what Roel was describing.

I'm all for entrusting the Berne fellows with maintainership of the 
Squeak kernel. They're the perfect candidates, actually, since they 
have an itch to scratch.

However, I don't know that we need to have a big rules discussion. 
There seems to be a certain level of comfort in the community with the 
idea, and as long as the development of the kernel happens out in the 
open, it'll become clear rather quickly what works, what doesn't and 
what's problematic.

We're a small enough community that we don't have to be overly 
concerned with rules, so much as establishing conventions for 
distributed maintainership of Squeak. In fact, I bet that no matter 
what we decide by talking about it in the abstract, what we end up 
actually doing will be different, and probably better.

So my suggestion would be, just do it. And my question for they Berne 
fellows would be, "what needs doing?"

Colin Putney
Whistler.com