From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Aug  2 17:48:42 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2E0D1065674;
	Thu,  2 Aug 2012 17:48:42 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from gpalmer@freebsd.org)
Received: from noop.in-addr.com (mail.in-addr.com [IPv6:2001:470:8:162::1])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97FF78FC12;
	Thu,  2 Aug 2012 17:48:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from gjp by noop.in-addr.com with local (Exim 4.80 (FreeBSD))
	(envelope-from <gpalmer@freebsd.org>)
	id 1SwzVe-0003l2-2H; Thu, 02 Aug 2012 13:48:30 -0400
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 13:48:29 -0400
From: Gary Palmer <gpalmer@freebsd.org>
To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20120802174829.GA574@in-addr.com>
References: <CAJ-FndCDpD3rnQFwiOSGofP9cPCxC5Zo+PLfxALY8pnE=2HQMA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACqU3MW2JEtDK0Ngdf_Br6D+VvdU1B9LmN0fm0F9=bG0f2iW4Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJ-VmomhHxG8t9Sw7de+zUnbz0O5GSY4ifpHFtCb9JS_zS0rBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACqU3MUKGcy8rNz0FcZLVat49BmRLD3hVKX+OXxkzwRDugKtAw@mail.gmail.com>
	<612DA8A3-121E-4E72-9E5B-F3CBA9DEB7F7@bsdimp.com>
	<CACqU3MU-WyNFf5UZGx15m_HWBx_6W272qkfqHHJ8G7v+JCK2Sw@mail.gmail.com>
	<FAE07410-CA99-4061-856F-799DB9D225BE@bsdimp.com>
	<501A0258.4010101@FreeBSD.org>
	<CA622462-DB69-40E4-9E1D-A4D83AEB12F8@theravensnest.org>
	<501AAEF2.8060202@FreeBSD.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <501AAEF2.8060202@FreeBSD.org>
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: gpalmer@freebsd.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on noop.in-addr.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org,
	David Chisnall <theraven@theravensnest.org>
Subject: Re: On cooperative work [Was: Re: newbus' ivar's limitation..]
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:48:43 -0000

On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 09:46:42AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> > but there is
> > certainly no active attempt to exclude people who can't attend.
> 
> ... and here is where I need to push back. "No active attempt to exclude
> people" is not the same thing as actively encouraging remote
> participation. It's the latter that we're after.

s/encouraging remote/encouraging constructive remote/

The last thing we need is more people trying to get things done their
way because they know best.  People need to be willing to accept that
maybe some widget they want won't be part of the goal of the project under
discussion, for whatever reason.  I've seen too many ... heated debates
start up largely because people were not discussing things face to face.
I'm not saying that all of the debates wouldn't happen if people were
all in the same room, but a lot of them wouldn't.

Larger/longer term projects should probably have their own mailing list set
up for discussion.

Regards,

Gary