RE: Taking control of parts of Squeak

Hi all!

"Andreas Raab" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Colin,
> 
> > However, I don't know that we need to have a big rules discussion. 
> 
> True. But I think some general outline of what is expected from someone who
> wants to "take over" a portion of kernel Squeak is good. It simply means
> that there's a common understanding within the community of what is expected
> from a "kernel package maintainer". This can only help as we are moving
> towards a more decentralized model of development.

I agree.

I also agree with Colin that we shouldn't get tangled in trying to
establish a complicated rule set that noone will follow and just make
people hesitant of becoming a kernel package maintainer. :-) But I think
we can avoid that.

But again - for a *particular* maintainer to present how he/she/they
intend to maintain a *particular* package is very good.

So, to be a bit constructive here - I would like the community to
produce the following:

1. A very small rule set for being a kernel package maintainer. Say,
about 5 rules? :-)

2. Some form of simple process how to become a kernel package
maintainer, how to stay one :-), and how to move the stick to someone
else.

And lets stay out of the "technical how" for a bit. We can attack that
as the next step. So... is this admittedly short list what we need? If
it is then I can continue by presenting a little draft based both on
ideas from Roel etc.

regards, Göran

PS. I intend to produce some form of proposal here on this list and
then, when we agree on it - post it on squeak-dev and see what all
others think.