> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>