Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 01:28:45 -0500 (EST) From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@mat.net> To: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> Cc: committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The recent fracas involving danes, war axes and wounded developers Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9812280111590.335-100000@picnic.mat.net> In-Reply-To: <199812280548.VAA07960@dingo.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 27 Dec 1998, Mike Smith wrote: > Any better ideas for addressing the problem? It's clear we need an > active, not a passive group. If core isn't open to a cull > (understandable), maybe some of this sort of work needs to fall to a > different management body? What about a different approach to these kind of topics, that are nearly guaranteed to cause controversy, whatever their merit? I would suggest that a call be made, a public call, on a list that's set up specifically for that purpose. Everyone can jump on those people who post to hackers/current/etc on subjects for the, uhh, PLANNING list. It would go like this: 1) someone from core posts a controversial topic, like a request for comment. 2) some time period goes by ... like maybe 1-2 weeks. During this time, no one from core is expected to either read or contribute. This means that the core frustration factor doesn't need to be over-exercised. Anyone posting on a PLANNING topic, to any other list, could be nicely flamed. If the subject line is controlled, their posts could even be automatically eliminated (or have themselves sent a warning message automatically). 3) at the end of the comment period, that appointed fall guy would have to make a summary of everything posted that seemed important. This wouldn't mean everything, the ranters and screamers could be filtered out here. Since it's in one list, getting this, and filtering it, wouldn't be terribly difficult. So far, no one (except possibly one person) from core has had to argue, or even take notice of the harangue. 4) At this point, core reads the summary. A repsonse to the summary is typed up as a message to PLANNING (and probably current and committers) and the action is simultaneously taken. Anyone complaining can either be asked why they didn't post to PLANNING, or read core's response if they did post there. The response, even to pretty radical things, will be far less, as long as people feel they've been listened to (this is true, whether or not the decision goes the way they want it to). Core doesn't have to listen to endless debate, except for the one designated editor, who has to make a summary. Point: I'm not terribly good at naming ... please take the name PLANNING as a placeholder for the name of your choice (it's the function that's important). I'd volunteer to do a summary, as long as you don't catch me during a semester when I'm busy. Might even do it then, beginning of a semester is not as busy as the end of one (and this is my *last* semester!) ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chuckr@glue.umd.edu | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 213 Lakeside Drive Apt T-1 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run Journey2 and picnic (FreeBSD-current) (301) 220-2114 | and jaunt (NetBSD). ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- 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?Pine.BSF.4.05.9812280111590.335-100000>