From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Nov 21 13:52:48 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id NAA19754
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 13:52:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rocky.mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA19744
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 13:52:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.mt.sri.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA12035; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 14:41:32 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 14:41:32 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <199611212141.OAA12035@rocky.mt.sri.com>
From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>
To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Cc: rkw@dataplex.net, hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Who needs Perl? We do!
In-Reply-To: <199611212046.NAA13887@phaeton.artisoft.com>
References: <199611211714.SAA01528@ravenock.cybercity.dk>
	<199611212046.NAA13887@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> There is too much "damage control" and too little "consideration" taking
> place for an unbiased conclusion that what Richard volunteered to do
> "wasn't what needed to be done".
> 

Richard was completely free to do what he wanted to do, but he wasn't
going to get the 'blessing' of anyone until he had a working prototype
that was at least as good as the current system.

It has *nothing* to do with blessing or consideration given to an
individual.  John became the VM guru because he re-wrote the VM system,
not because he said 'Hey, can I be the VM guru.  Please, pretty please,
I *really* know what I'm doing, so let me be it.'

Poul was once the laptop guru, but because of lack of time and resources
allowed me to become it *AFTER* I did some laptop work and prove that I
was capable of handling it.  (And I have since dropped the ball, but
that's another story).

I didn't ask Poul or core to be 'the laptop guy', I simply *became* the
laptop guy because I did work.  Richard has yet to show code for any of
his good ideas, and until that happens we all will appreciate his CTM
work, but asking for 'permission' to do something is never the way
things are worked.

To bring in the blast from the past, you becamse the defacto patchkit
maintainer because you did the work, not because you got Bill's (or
anyone else for that matter) permission.  I was given the ugly stick
because (hopefully) I had shown to you my willingness to do the work and
by organizing and doing work *before* you handed me the baton.

It wasn't because I asked so much as because I had already shown I was
capable of doing the job.

That's how things work around here.  You don't get 'blessings' or
'permission' to do something, you do it and then find an advocate to run
with it.  After the advocate is happy with your work (or too overloaded
to do it himself), you become a committer and then are one of the
'blessed/cursed' who are responsible for the whole darn mess.


Nate