On 2006 August 21 05:04, Lex Spoon wrote:
Milan Zimmermann milan.zimmermann@sympatico.ca writes:
- "The Board" would start with defining what Squeak is - "Squeak" as a
small "SqueakCore" plus "Packages" - Unfortunately I can only be intuitive here, not saying I know what should be in "SqueakCore", likely it would be much smaller than current Squeak, without Morphic, MVC (UI loadable, is that possible?)
- "The Board" would steer the community to achieve separating the
"SqueakCore", and promote _tools_ that help achieving the separation, and "re-loadability" of some most important packages.
- Once the separation is done, "The Board" would be repsonsible for
steering "SqueakCore" _only_.
Sounds good to me. I would like to see a body organizing Squeakers more than anything else, and this is the way to do it. I wouldn't put it so strongly, though: in addition to arbitrating the maintenance of the core part, there is a place for helping people exchange their Squeak addons.
Yes that makes sense. I felt uneasy commenting on this given I am barely a weekend squeaker, but got encouraged by the original question "what would it take for you[squeak-dev list member] to "buy in" to a central governance model for Squeak".
Also, Squeak would continue to evolve the Squeak we know. Discussions about tossing it and starting from the ground up are interesting but off topic. If you want to do that, then you are free, but Squeak's organization should take care of Squeak.
What I had intuitively in mind (by saying it would make sense to encourage alternative cores) would be their existence would show the API to the core is well-defined and hopefully stable. In a way similar to ability to run (a large set of) packages such as KDE on both Linux and FreeBSD shows there must be well-understood API to the cores (perhaps with different adapters but still defined). Apart from that clarification I agree talking about alternatives was off-topic.
Milan
-Lex