HI All, ESUG is not unknown. Community members know exactly what ESUG is. We don't seem to have trouble attracting participants and completing projects using the ESUG name for GSoC. There is so much cool stuff to do and it seems cool people to do the work. ESUG has been doing a terrific job supporting Smalltalk. Success matters.
I would vote to not mess with success. The ESUG name should stay. Now if we had even more groups mentoring Smalltalk for GSoC that would be fine with me too. There is no reason to lose any. All the best, Ron Teitelbaum > -----Original Message----- > From: Pharo-dev [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Pharo4Stef > Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 9:54 AM > To: Pharo Development List > Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] for those not in the smalltalk-gsoc-mentors mailing-list > nor in esug > > > > 1. Creating separate powerful organisation that will move in one direction will > give good results in a longer time, but the beginning will be tuff. > > I do not think that we should do it. We were frustated in the past that we could > not participate then we participate and ESUG was nice to handle the billing part. > So I would let run it now that marcus and luc spent the time to iron everything. > Now it would be good that people stop to piss on us. > > > > 2. I wouldn't call it a "Pharo" organisation. e.g. Amber is cool too, no? In fact > it should be some group that want's to do rings for real and not just state that > they are writing a code in Smalltalk. > > indeed. > I propose that just to see how far Janko was going. I think that it would be a > stupid move. > > This is why we stopped organizing a Pharo specific conference this year. But on > the other hand this is too easy to say that ESUG is biaised. And this is not good > from an energy stand point. > But some people are better at ranting than doing. > > > Stef
