From owner-freebsd-current Wed Sep 4 21:41:59 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id VAA21067 for current-outgoing; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 21:41:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA21062; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 21:41:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id VAA08242; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 21:40:16 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199609050440.VAA08242@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: Latest Current build failure To: gpalmer@FreeBSD.org (Gary Palmer) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 21:40:15 -0700 (MST) Cc: rkw@dataplex.net, dg@Root.COM, current@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <16322.841897090@orion.webspan.net> from "Gary Palmer" at Sep 5, 96 00:18:10 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > I think that there is this problem here. You say we don't accept your > solutions to problem `x'. For everyone else in the universe, to date, > to accept their solution to `x' we ask for code as we can discuss > theory until we are blue in the face (and often do), but working code > (or even semi-working code) is all that really matters to a voluntary > project like ourselves. Once again: Richard wants you to accept (or help correct) his definition of "problem x". Then he wants to have a definition of "acceptable soloutions to the class of problems of which "problem x" is a member. This will allow him to code a soloution which, if you do not backtrack on your word, will be considered solely on it's ability to solve the problem, instea of on its implementation details. > I think maybe if you had a track record of producing good results, we > would accept proposed solution and give you the reins, but (to my > memory at least) you are still a relative unknown. So there is (in my > mind at least) a confidence level yet to be attained for us to accept > this sort of solution. Richard does not want the reins. He wants a roadmap so that he can go a little ways down the road without having to have someone come back later and say "that's not the road to Topeka!"... and Richard has already expended the effort to build Topeka at the end of that road. A general comment: It is unprofessional to assume someone is "unprofessional unless proven otherwise". The correct default protocol for optimize effective progress is to assume the other person is acting from a position of good faith. To do otherwise, and require a "buy in" is cronyism. I suggest the book "The Evolution of Cooperation", and Douglas Hofstader's treatment of "The Prisoners Dilemma"; specifically, the strategy called "modified tit-for-tat with forgiveness starting from an expectation of good faith". Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.