From owner-freebsd-current  Wed Oct 23 20:40:17 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id UAA04831
          for current-outgoing; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 20:40:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA04820
          for <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org>; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 20:40:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.7.6/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA11702; Wed, 23 Oct 1996 20:36:20 -0700 (PDT)
To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
cc: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Possibility? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 23 Oct 1996 14:16:51 PDT."
             <199610232116.OAA10473@phaeton.artisoft.com> 
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 20:36:20 -0700
Message-ID: <11700.846128180@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> I think the core team sets direction and policy, as well as
> self-sechduling core team members as engineering resources, doesn't it?

The core team members largely self-schedule themselves, more according
to whatever available time and energy resources are available that
week than any quickly-obsolete "master plan", but if one wanted to
back-solve from this and call the sum of their decisions "core team
policy" then yeah, I guess you could do that too. ;-)

					Jordan

P.S. Of course this isn't ISO 9000 compliant management, but then about
95% of the existing core team would probably walk if it were, so the
medicine would be worse than the cure.