[squeak-dev] Craig's 2008 campaign platform

      (from [1])


Hi--

      My first priority is to finish putting the Squeak project on a
solid legal footing. Through membership in the Software Freedom
Conservancy, the project will be able to receive tax-exempt donations.
We can use that money to fund our infrastructure (e.g., servers and
connectivity), as well as system development and outreach. I have been
working with the Conservancy toward our membership, and would like to
see this to completion.

      With the initial Squeak release now available under a common
open-source license, and agreements from most of our contributors, the
most pressing task is to make a new release composed entirely of
appropriately-licensed material. I would like to choose and lead a
release team to accomplish this task. I think we should also take this
opportunity to create the next major release, Squeak 4. It is long past
time that we incorporate several major improvements to the system, and
make real progress in modularity.

      We've had regular leadership elections for three years now; this
is a very good thing. So far, though, I don't think the elections have
resulted in clear technical mandates, mostly because the candidates
haven't advocated strong technical positions. In my own case, I've been
hesitant to advocate my own modularity work[2] when running for the
board, because I haven't finished implementing it. I think we need a
mandate now with regard to modularity, so that we can keep the releases
well-organized in the future after going to the trouble of our
relicensing effort.

      Let's turn our attention to Squeak 4 now. Let's create a kernel
with nothing extraneous in it, and a module system we can use to keep
the organization clear. I think the result will be much easier to learn,
and far more pleasant to use. Getting there will be difficult, but it
will be worth it.

      Please do contact me with any questions or feedback.


      thanks!

      Craig Latta

--
[1] http://people.squeakfoundation.org/article/82.html
[2] http://netjam.org/spoon

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:04:52 -0800
Craig Latta <[hidden email]> wrote:

>       With the initial Squeak release now available under a common
> open-source license, and agreements from most of our contributors, the
> most pressing task is to make a new release composed entirely of
> appropriately-licensed material.


How does one go about doing this?

Am I right in assuming that you'd just take out all the code from contributers that did not sign the agreement?

Gulik.

Hi Michael--

 > > With the initial Squeak release now available under a common
 > > open-source license, and agreements from most of our contributors,
 > > the most pressing task is to make a new release composed entirely of
 > > appropriately-licensed material.
 >
 > How does one go about doing this?
 >
 > Am I right in assuming that you'd just take out all the code from
 > contributors that did not sign the agreement?

      I think that's roughly the first step, yes. I imagine we'll want
to do some refactoring and otherwise replace some of the removed code.
Note that this filter should apply to all the source code included in
the release via the system history (be it the traditional sources and
changes files, or some other mechanism).

      In general, I advocate a kernel with only that needed to start and
extend itself, with most code available for loading as needed. In
practice, I expect some folks will make "distributions" with certain
code already loaded, for convenience.


      thanks,

-C

--
Craig Latta
improvisational musical informaticist
www.netjam.org
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]

On Saturday 01 March 2008 5:34:52 am Craig Latta wrote:
>       Let's turn our attention to Squeak 4 now. Let's create a kernel
> with nothing extraneous in it, and a module system we can use to keep
> the organization clear. I think the result will be much easier to learn,
> and far more pleasant to use. Getting there will be difficult, but it
> will be worth it.
If we are going to strip Squeak down and rebuild it, should we consider
picking a new name for the project? The name Squeak has been around for more
than a decade and has strong associations (good or bad) with certain feature
sets and intended uses. A legally clear open source base is a good time to
invent a new platform that can consolidate the lessons learnt from the Squeak
project and build a new system for the next generation - just as Squeak
emerged from Smalltalk-80.

Spoon? Hydra? Athena? Phoenix? Roar :-)?

Just a thought .. Subbu

Hi Subbu--

      This would be a good separate thread on squeak-dev, and a board
meeting agenda item after the election.


      thanks,

-C

--
Craig Latta
improvisational musical informaticist
www.netjam.org
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]

On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 9:22 AM, K. K. Subramaniam <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Saturday 01 March 2008 5:34:52 am Craig Latta wrote:
...
>  If we are going to strip Squeak down and rebuild it, should we consider
>  picking a new name for the project? The name Squeak has been around for more
>  than a decade and has strong associations (good or bad) with certain feature
>  sets and intended uses. A legally clear open source base is a good time to
>  invent a new platform that can consolidate the lessons learnt from the Squeak
>  project and build a new system for the next generation - just as Squeak
>  emerged from Smalltalk-80.

What about Smalltalk-08?  (Assuming the next release would take less
than 10 months..)

On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Craig Latta <[hidden email]> wrote:
...
>       This would be a good separate thread on squeak-dev, and a board
>  meeting agenda item after the election.

Sorry, I couldn't resist!

Best Regards,

Victor Rodriguez.

>  Spoon? Hydra? Athena? Phoenix? Roar :-)?
>
>  Just a thought .. Subbu
>
>