> 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:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > I'm reposting this email since I have the impression that the point
> > was lost in its original thread.
> >
> > ...
> >     - Normally after election, politicians do not really listen
> > anymore and
> >     I would like to do the inverse. I would really like to know what
> > you  expect
> >     or would like to see put in place. We have some ideas (bounty
> > system, better process)
> >     and I will really listen what the new boarders want to do (I'm
> > even  eager to see that :)).
> >
> > We do not have the monopole of good ideas,
> > so if you have some points that you would like to see happening
> > please mention it.
> >
> > Stef
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>