libraries then we would have more impact.
I am. More and more as I'm getting used to the libraries and to the
contribution process (which still is centralized).
Excellent
However you can't count with everybody contributing to make Pharo a success.
It won't happen to Pharo, as it wont happen anywhere else.
Wikipedia isn't a success because everybody contributes, it is a
success because there is a dedicated/loyal group of contributors that
accounts for 80% of the material published. Pareto principle end to
end.
Yes this is clear.
Still Pharo is yours not mine.
Sorry, but as others said, I neither share that feeling. And I it
isn't something negative to me.
I feel part of the community, and as I publish fixes or minor
improvements I begin to be part of the contributors.
Only being part of the Association or Consortium is the only,
reasonable way, of feeling that, and even so I can anticipate myself I
won't feel that.
Ok but in other systems did you ever thought that you could improve some
core functions?
This is my point.
Please consider than USING Pharo is a way to contribute to it.
yes but we are small and using is not enough
Not enough, but don't disregard your users!
I do not. I'm writing books, tutorials, videos for them.
Take the example mentioned above above Wikipedia.
As the user base grows, the motivation for public contributions grows too.
And also grows the funding.
It's a virtuous circle.
Even if you had infinite manpower but no one uses it, it would be
worthless.
Give me 2 Millions Euros and you will see
that lot of people will come and use it.
If I had it I'd totally give it, but unfortunately I don't have it.
However I don't think it is only about that.
Many ventures fail with even more money.
With more resources, you would make Pharo better/awesome..., but money
only don't create the market nor the demand.
Even lobbyists need more money than that to gain traction.
Best regards!
Esteban A. Maringolo
