From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Nov 21 09:54:21 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id JAA08115 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 09:54:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from gateway.skipstone.com (root@GATEWAY.SKIPSTONE.COM [198.214.10.129]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA08095; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 09:53:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from bugs.skipstone.com (bugs.skipstone.com [204.69.236.2]) by gateway.skipstone.com (8.7.4/8.6.9) with ESMTP id LAA06332; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 11:53:47 -0600 Received: from [204.69.236.50] (hotapplepie.skipstone.com [204.69.236.50]) by bugs.skipstone.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA29320; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 11:53:50 -0600 X-Sender: rkw@mail.dataplex.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199611211714.SAA01528@ravenock.cybercity.dk> References: from "Richard Wackerbarth" at Nov 21, 96 10:54:44 am Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 11:53:49 -0600 To: sos@FreeBSD.org From: Richard Wackerbarth Subject: Re: Who needs Perl? We do! Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >In reply to Richard Wackerbarth who wrote: >> >> >Am I hearing a volounteer here ?? >> > or is there silence again this time ?? >> >> I suggest that you reconsider your (core) willingness to delegate. >> I AM doing some chores which, I assure you, some of the "customers" >> consider important. > >You are ?? Yes, but perhaps YOU are one of those that think that "writing new code" is the only worthwhile contribution. :-( >> I HAVE volounteered to take on some things and been rebuffed in my efforts. > >Really, maybe what you wanted to do, wasn't what needed to be done ?? Oh! I think that there was some concensus that it NEEDS to be done. It is just that the "core" is unwilling to delegate the responsibility to me. >> In any case, by delegating certain areas, you are defacto adding those >> individuals to the (now expanded) "core". > >No, I'm not, core is big enough allready, but we need core to be more >of a governing/directionshowing entity, instead of a poor workhorse.. The Board of Directors still get blamed when the company goes bankrupt. The upper level managers are also viewed in poor light. >Like it or not, there has to be rules (like in the real world out >there), and they should be followed. If we have X developers working >in Y different directions, we have lost the game. So if one want's >to participate, one has to follow the rules, simple as that... Yes, but your "rules" have to take into consideration the fact that this is (almost exclusively) unpaid labor. If you do not generate a situation where an individual gets to work onan area that he desires, he can easily choose to simply not contribute. Don't get me wrong. I am all for rules. However, they cut both ways. To be successful, you need to take into consideration reasonable goals and deadlines. But be careful, if you make the rules too unworkable, you eliminate too many participants. If, as it appears to some of us, you have one set of rules for insiders and another set for outsiders, you decrease the desirability of participation. Remember that the only real attribute that distinguishes many to the two populations is that the "insiders" got to this project first (and then locked the door?) >> My comment about dodging the >> consequences by attempting to distance yourself from the problem still >> applies. >I guess we should stop here as we are not going anywhere, and I'm >using valuable time trying to explain things, where I should be >producing code/fixes, which btw is considerably more rewarding than >this.... Perhaps you should consider that in the light of your " we need core to be more of a governing/directionshowing entity..." statement. Successful managers often do not have time for "doing" the nitty-gritty. They MUST delegate.