From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Dec  7 17:53:39 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id C3F5416A4CF; Tue,  7 Dec 2004 17:53:39 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.village.org [168.103.84.182])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 08C5A43D70; Tue,  7 Dec 2004 17:53:39 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1])
	by harmony.village.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id iB7HrBA0070667;
	Tue, 7 Dec 2004 10:53:16 -0700 (MST)
	(envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org)
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 10:53:11 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <20041207.105311.74679218.imp@harmony.village.org>
To: phk@phk.freebsd.dk
From: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org>
In-Reply-To: <98421.1102400993@critter.freebsd.dk>
References: <20041206230309.GN92212@wantadilla.lemis.com>
	<98421.1102400993@critter.freebsd.dk>
X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
cc: grog@freebsd.org
cc: arch@freebsd.org
cc: rwatson@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] IPX and NWFS to be killed in -current. 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 17:53:39 -0000

> >Why don't you leave that kind of decision to the people who run the
> >project?  Your intentions appear to be at variance with those of the
> >two members of core who have responded.
> 
> That is a refreshingly easy question to answer:  because core has time
> and again said that they prefer to act on specific requests.

Core has been transitioning to a more proactive role in making these
sorts of decisions over the past 9 months or so.  This can be seen
both in terms of what we're doing as individuals, as well as the
things we're talking about in our conference calls.

Warner