Steve; Yeah sorry I haven't had time to mess with this more lately.
Maybe I'll get back into it throughout the christmas break. I'm a little wary of doing it without discussion with the official chuck devs, maybe we should discuss the idea more on chuck-dev@.
I agree. IMHO the core of what ChucK's development will need in the future is de-centralisation and communication. To me it's clear that we have people around that can write a decent UGen or two and we have plenty of people who can test such things. If some people verify a certain new UGen works, is stable, useful and relatively efficient I feel it should need no more then a glance of one of the main DEV's to be included in the main build. There will be bugs anyway and we'll find them, no big deal. If we had a shortage of people willing to risk their computer and sanity on untested ideas we wouldn't be here :¬). The same goes for the manual,etc. I'm no project leader, I have next to no experience with this type of process so take my words with a few lumps of salt. It's my impression that our main DEV's are highly tallented people and that becuase of this their time is in great demand. I suspect comunication is becoming a bottle-neck and that with a properly organised de-centralised structure we could get more done. There is a lot of stuff that could be done that wouldn't need somebody like Ge personally, at least not beyond the occasional check for coherency. We do need quality control but quallity control is the one thing we've proven to be very good at de-centralising. We've got more senior users that will work together to hunt down more complicated issues and we've got a steady influx of enthousiastic new users that have turned out to be great at pointing out some things are under-documented. IMHO, Kas.