Bert, Are you satisfied with the number of activity developers? Are you satisfied with the number of developers within the deployments? Have you noticed the periodic questions on the developer-oriented lists about Rainbow security and whether it is causing mysterious symptoms? I'm not, and I have. Asking for better documentation doesn't imply that the facility is new. It recognizes that development has reached a local minimum in an important component that is not well understood by many. My post was a request to the most knowledgeable person, Michael to do the service of taking the time to write a document that clearly lays out . the purpose (not in security speak but in terms of the benefits it brings to end users), . the relevance of APIs versus packaging elements versus choices by the sugar shell/infrastructure developers, . things that the activity developers can and can't do (given that I, at least, hope that new developers will participate, who have preconceptions from other environments), Things that are hoped for in future development (well delimited from things that are there now.) Good documentation is hard, and wiki pages are only good documentation if the wiki is maintained with great discipline (which I fear is not the case at w.l.o). But for a subtle and complex feature such as Rainbow, good documentation would be a motivator for use both within and outside the sugar community.