Thanks Steph! This is much-needed to focus our community and avoid unnecessary confusion and chatter. A few minor edits to Ch. 1: pg. 1 "curved in stone" should be carved pg. 4 * "based on an integreation server" should be integration * "test them and notify its results" should be "tests them and notifies its results" * "We will also put in place another level of checks based on integration servers as well." -> To me this sentence adds nothing. Either explain more or remove it. * "We will not do that for the sake of changing." I think you mean "We will not change for the sake of change." * "expressing in a more com- pact form all kind of information" would be more clear as "expressing all kinds of information in a more compact form" * "optimization at compiler level" -> "optimization at the compiler level" * "Not only we want that people build" -> "Not only do we want people build" pg. 5 * "We want that both users and the system general quality, benefit from the best libraries." -> "We want both users and the general quality of the system to benefit from the best libraries." * "we want to have validated packages running check rules and automated tests automatically validated." is unclear, but I don't understand it well enough to change it * "*a* good interaction with the rest of the world" should be "good interaction with the rest of the world" * "The list *if* not exhaustive but should allow *one* to structure the development effort." -> "The list is not exhaustive but should allow us to structure the development effort." * "New IDES" -> "New IDEs" * "but also new *way* of handling" -> "but also new ways of handling" * "of new *kind* of IDEs, desktop metaphor and" -> "of new kinds of IDEs, desktop metaphor and:" (added colon at end, subsequent bullets are children) pg. 6 * "proved that it was worth." Sentence fragment, I'm not clear enough to fix it * "and complex *applications*" -> "and complex application" * "Obviously everybody prefer to use a fast library than a slow one. We should develop rule checking that include speed regression testing." -> "Obviously everybody prefers using a fast library over a slow one. We should develop rule checking that includes speed regression testing." * "64 bits. For managing large amount of data" -> "64 bits. For managing a large amount of data" * "Even if theoretically with a 32 bits VM we should be able to run images of at least 2 GBs, this is not the case of current available VMs. For example, the Windows VM does not support images bigger than 512 MB." -> "Although a 32 bit VM can theoretically run images of up to 2 GB, the currently available VMs are more limited. For example, the Windows VM does not support images bigger than 512 MB." pg. 7 * "Large applications" section is repeated * "OpenSophie proved that Smalltalk and Squeak in particular, the ancestor of Pharo, are good platforms for building advanced multimedia applications. We believe that Pharo can be used in such situation." -> "OpenSophie proved that Smalltalk, and Squeak (Pharo's ancestor) in particular, are good platforms for building advanced multimedia applications. We believe that Pharo is well-suited for this." Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/pharo-vision-tp4340345p4341249.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.