Posted by Daniel Vainsencher-2 on Mar 03, 2006; 11:22am
URL: https://forum.world.st/SqF-feedback-tp47463p47464.html

A. More ties with sibling communities:
- news about their progress,
- guides and up to date pointers to their releases (see the recent
"which Squeakland should I use for..." discussion) and so forth.
- More visibility for the processes of code synchronization between us
and them (some way people can quickly answer the question - what are we
missing compared to <your favorite variant of squeak).
- More cross project "platform" discussion, to share opinions (and maybe
even coordinate policy) about various changes to Squeak as a platform.
Examples: adoption of ToolBuilder, Traits, OB vs traditional browser,
annotations, Flow...
B. Action on the license front - a decision on a license policy. Since
we're on the "what I'd like to see" - I think we should try to lower the
percent of non-freely licensed code in the image:
- request that new packages be at least dual licensed MIT,
- Find out some conservative approximation of "who holds what
copyrights", and relicense to MIT anything we can get consent for.
- Encourage people that are changing packages significantly (refactoring
collections to use traits) to rewrite instead, and place it under a free
license.
- have SqueakSource repositories have a "if you upload code here, by
default it is under license ..." field per project, to make .
C. Continue improving Squeak governance - we now have an elected board,
which is better than the previous modes of selection. However, the
relation of this board to various aspects of Squeak is unclear:
- Who decides whether to push <your favorite disruptive change> into the
current version?
- Relation to non-package-maintaining teams: who decides membership and
scope of a team?
The important thing here is that we evolve/design the structure, so that
it improves over time, rather than the sometimes arbitrary-seeming
changes we've had in the past.


Daniel


stéphane ducasse wrote: