From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Dec  8 14:44:33 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA23033
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 14:44:33 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers)
Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.119.24.10])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA23016
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 14:44:23 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net)
Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [194.198.43.36])
	by ns1.yes.no (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA22306;
	Mon, 8 Dec 1997 22:44:14 GMT
Received: (from eivind@localhost)
	by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) id XAA15686;
	Mon, 8 Dec 1997 23:43:41 +0100 (MET)
To: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>
Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: [hackers:] Architectural advice needed
References: <Pine.BSF.3.95.971208000915.20612J-100000@current1.whistle.com> 	<18693.881576199@time.cdrom.com> <199712081523.IAA11391@mt.sri.com>
From: Eivind Eklund <perhaps@yes.no>
Date: 08 Dec 1997 23:43:39 +0100
In-Reply-To: Nate Williams's message of Mon, 8 Dec 1997 08:23:04 -0700
Message-ID: <86hg8jo3qc.fsf@bitbox.follo.net>
Lines: 29
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.52/XEmacs 20.2
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> writes:

> [
> Removed Kirk from the list, he doesn't need to here about FreeBSD
> politics.
> ]
> 
> > > Ah this would be the CLOSED LIST to which I have not been admitted though
> > > I have asked to join several times, yes?
> > 
> > Actually, that list hasn't been used for over a year and should
> > probably be retired.  I don't think it ever fulfilled its purpose.
> 
> That's because no-one ever talks about architecture stuff anymore, and
> just 'implements' nowadays.  I think it *could* fulfill its purpose if
> it was actually promoted/used.  I would have used it in the past if I
> thought it would be monitored, although it wasn't.  Could we consider it
> 'back in use' for questions such as Julians?

I'd guess that was a good idea - both -hackers and -current seems
overloaded, and a not-so-public list might mean that key developers
could both follow the 'high-level' discussions and have time to
actually do development.

OTOH: I didn't see how the list died, so I can't say that 'the time is
ripe'.  If the list goes active, I'd like to join if possible, though
:-)

Eivind.