Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 17:34:57 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams) Cc: terry@lambert.org, rkw@dataplex.net, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Who needs Perl? We do! Message-ID: <199611220034.RAA14461@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199611212141.OAA12035@rocky.mt.sri.com> from "Nate Williams" at Nov 21, 96 02:41:32 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > There is too much "damage control" and too little "consideration" taking > > place for an unbiased conclusion that what Richard volunteered to do > > "wasn't what needed to be done". > > Richard was completely free to do what he wanted to do, but he wasn't > going to get the 'blessing' of anyone until he had a working prototype > that was at least as good as the current system. I don't think that was the problem. What he was looking for was a commitment that, if there was consensus that the prototype was "at least as good as the current system", then the existing system would be replaced. In other words, a definition of an acceptable replacement and an agreement to not change the definition out from under him while he did the work. Then all Richard would have to do is "meet spec" instead of "meet spec and play politics". > To bring in the blast from the past, you becamse the defacto patchkit > maintainer because you did the work, not because you got Bill's (or > anyone else for that matter) permission. I was given the ugly stick > because (hopefully) I had shown to you my willingness to do the work and > by organizing and doing work *before* you handed me the baton. Not quite. I agree that the results would have been the same, whatever the motivation, if that's any consolation. 8-). Actually, it was because I'm more interested in (figuratively) framing houses than in nailing up sheetrock, spackling, and painting. After building the machine for building patchkits, I was interested in going on to build the next machine instead of running the one I built. In other words, I wanted to do systems engineering, not patchkit or release engineering. If you want to go the the "blast from the past" immediately previous to that one, I did the same thing with the FreeBSD FAQ: built a tool, and then instead of using it, went on to the next tool (the patchkit). If I'd known then what I know now, I would have spent a bit more time systems-engineering a template for volunteer organizations and a bit less time waiting for Bill to wear the mantle designed by Linus. I can only say that I was naieve about what the spirit of volunteerism can and can't motivate in the face of normal human group dynamics in the context of a private law system. I'll know better The Next Time, and will install a self-maintaining, machine-run voting democracy with a prioritization feedback loop. Example: Each person gets N "votes" in a time period, and can "spend" up to 0-K of them on any topic. Each person also gets some M << N "call for votes" that they can "spend" in a given time period. Majority rules. Votes close 4 weeks after call, or when a majority is undeniable (the number of remaining potential votes is less than the total minus the votes already cast for one side of the issue). Each accumulates over time, and both quit accumulating when they reach the limit. Same thing for organizational policy decisions, only with smaller limits to ensure a longer periodic vector, and a 3/4 majority requirement. Like vote accumulation period, initial votes for new members, expansion of the comitters list, change in majority values, etc.. So if I truly feel strongly about something, I can "call for a vote", and then "vote up to K votes" for/against. Everyone else "votes up to K votes" for/against. If they care. If they don't care enough to vote, then what they say really doesn't matter. If I'm a whiner, I quickly run out of my number of "votes/call for votes" and the activity is self-limiting. I'll either pace myself, or you can "put me down" with opposing votes each time I enter a flurry of activity. If the main participants fail to participate fully, then the system will self-correct to a different meta-stable state that excludes them, but which does not penalize their future participation. Goodbye to: Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My patch I didn't have time to look at your patch, but I'll get to it real soon now, I promise" -- A member of the committer society Subject: No time Sorry, your changes are too large for us to be able to vet them. -- A member of the code vetting society Subject: Re: Closed developement Sorry, I just don't have time to waste on organizational issues, I'm busy coding! -- A member of the organization committe Ah, ode to fuzzy control systems! Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611220034.RAA14461>