Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 13:39:21 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> To: obrien@FreeBSD.org Cc: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Core's function (was: The Project and onward [was: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet ip_output.c]) Message-ID: <15023.55033.745531.86279@nomad.yogotech.com> In-Reply-To: <20010314123213.A2341@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <10215.984516433@critter> <20010313134342A.jkh@osd.bsdi.com> <15023.42546.30738.1117@nomad.yogotech.com> <20010314105913O.jkh@osd.bsdi.com> <15023.49981.504894.198797@nomad.yogotech.com> <20010314123213.A2341@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Core's lack of involvement is allowing this behavior to continue. > > Core's involvement would *a* solution, not necessarily the only > > solution, or even the full solution. > > Many of us do not want the Core of the past where there was a ruling > eleet. And I think that has been reflected in the current Core. I didn't see it *quite* that way. I saw core as a group of committers who could do no wrong, and whose behavior had no consequences. This is less of what's core allowed to do (in the harmful sense), and what core can do to be helpful. > I agree with JKH here -- it does not have to be Core to do something. I never said it had to be a core person doing the 'something'. But, core should be able to 'bless' certain people/projects, etc..., similar to what was done with SMPng. Even if you didn't like the direction Jason was taking the project, he *was* the leader, so that removed alot (not all) of the hassles and arguments that people had about direction. > It could be *anyone*. In fact the right person to do the things you > are looking for, should be chosen much more for their personality and > charisma, than being being elected to an administrative body. Sure, but core should be able to put a 'stamp of approval' on them, thus giving them more clout to have people rally around the flag. > > Again, using your analogy above, should the teachers refuse to get > > involved with the process and wait until *after* the shootings have > > occurred? > > Core is the the "teachers", committers are. I resent putting Core high > up on a worship pedestal for committers to bow down at. I don't think anyone *ever* worshipped or bowed down to core. At least, no-one I've ever been involved with has. :) > > That's what you're implying above. Core is the over-sight > > committee, and by getting involved *earlier* they can have a positive > > effect on the discussions, and try to help out the discussions so that > > the bullys don't end up taking over the school. :) > > This positive affect should come from committers as a whole. Granted > committers often don't speak up. Because when they do, they get shot down and beat up. It's not a positive setting to propose change (as you should be well aware of). The people that get things done are folks who are extremely thick-skinned, or folks that give up and don't care anymore (which you've stated multiple times in the last few weeks). Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15023.55033.745531.86279>