From owner-freebsd-current Thu Oct 24 17:16:06 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id RAA05300 for current-outgoing; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 17:16:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eel.dataplex.net (eel.dataplex.net [208.2.87.2]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA05186 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 17:16:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [208.2.87.4] (cod [208.2.87.4]) by eel.dataplex.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA26685; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 19:14:32 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: rkw@mail.dataplex.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <15018.846196060@time.cdrom.com> References: Your message of "Thu, 24 Oct 1996 10:52:09 PDT." <199610241752.KAA12316@phaeton.artisoft.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 19:14:02 -0500 To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" From: Richard Wackerbarth Subject: Re: Possibility? Cc: Terry Lambert , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >> Why does everyone assume (incorrectly, IMO) that it is onerous to >> >> 1) Say what you are going to do >> 2) Do what you say > >Did you really want an answer to these rhetorical questions? Is that >also a rhetorical question? ;-) > >Because in a volunteer project, you invariably: > >1) Say you're going to do a lot more than you can, human enthusiasms > being what they are. > >2) Do only some portion of these things, being somewhat encumbered by > various laws of physics which state that you can't do 170 hours > worth of work in a 168 hour week, even by eschewing sleep. I agree with Jordan that the nature of the organization precludes SCHEDULING of features in the manner that some would like to see. But that is also true of commercial operations :-) However, I don't see how it applies to the DESIGN METHODOLOGY. First you design a specification and then you implement to the specification. And Terry left out the next step which is to test that the implementation meets the specification. This methodology CAN be applied to any group as long as someone is willing to say "if you cannot play by the rules, you don't get to play here" I've seen you apply that philosophy to e-mail. I don't see why you cannot apply the same attitude to code.