> Hi Avi and everyone--
>
>  
>>> There were two principles I was following. The first was that,
>>> occasionally, a system requires important fundamental changes to
>>> remain vital. I refer to previously-expressed concepts of "blue
>>> plane" or "burn the disk packs" thinking. (I hesitate to use those
>>> particular phrases, because I think much of their power in this
>>> community derives from nostaliga. I do think, however, that they
>>> truly were valid ideas.) I came to believe that the Squeak community
>>> was particularly receptive to these ideas, not just [to] the people
>>> espousing them or the funding they represented.
>>>
>>> The second principle was that discussion of a shared vision could
>>> ameliorate the lack of a short-term gain, and even hasten the
>>> implementation of the vision by attracting volunteers. There was a
>>> time in the Squeak community, it seemed to me, when we could discuss
>>> the merits of an idea before the implementation was finished. I
>>> found it useful, and inspiring. This is why I have been writing
>>> progress reports for Spoon and asking for feedback.
>>>      
>> Aha.  My personal observation has been that this principle does not
>> hold.  One piece of evidence I have is the various version control
>> systems I have worked on for Squeak.  The current version of
>> Monticello arose through a series of very incremental and (in
>> retrospect) "unnecessary" early versions (including "DVS" before it
>> was called "Monticello"), but each of which was released as a working
>> and useful artifact without any prior discussion.
>>
>> For Monticello 2, on the other hand, we've released plenty of
>> information, tried to open discussion many times, asked for volunteers
>> at several points, but never released something that people could
>> actually use for their daily work.  Result: apart from Damien who
>> recently got some funding to work on it, we've had no response
>> whatsoever. This despite the fact that MC2 is a much better and more
>> ambitious design than any of the prior versions of MC.
>>
>> I've seen similar patterns with Seaside versions over the years:
>> discussions about the future go precisely nowhere.  Ditto experimental
>> branches for people to play with.  But make a deep change that still
>> lets people get their work done and nobody blinks.
>>    
>
>      Okay, but if the second principle doesn't hold, then I don't see
> how the first one can have any actual significance in this community. To
> use Koestler's "bisociation" metaphor[1] yet again, it seems that where
> I want to go is simply not reachable through any path we're collectively
> willing to take.
>
>      So, it seems I must go there myself (with those few others who can
> take some time away from getting work done, or who can somehow
> rationalize the effort itself as getting work done :). Only then, if the
> result is practical for use by everyone else, should I ask for
> consideration here. I can accept that, although I find it disappointing
> and surprising given my early experiences with the community. But it's
> still not clear to me what the community would consider "practical",
> despite a few attempts some have made to elaborate (I appreciate the
> attempts anyway).
>
>      In the absence of meaningful planning by the Squeak community on
> whether, when, and how to use Spoon, those working on it[2] can only
> leave those decisions to others. Oh, and I suppose those with funding
> can feel free to speak up at any time. :)
>
>      In short (too late! ;), I won't press this further, you all know
> where to find Spoon info if you want it[3]. I'll keep helping in other
> ways. Thanks for reading.
>
>
> -C
>
> [1] ...the "blue/pink planes" stuff, e.g. as mentioned by Kay from 17:25
>     onward in http://tinyurl.com/ok5df (video.google.com).
>
> [2] ...it's not just me, although I am coordinating it.
>
> [3] http://netjam.org/spoon
>
> --
> Craig Latta
> improvisational musical informaticist
> www.netjam.org
> Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]
>
>
>
>