At 10:07 AM 1/11/01 +1100, Martin Sevior wrote:
>First off, its great to have you back Paul. (If indeed you ever went
>away.) I hope that your twins are giving you a little peace once or twice
>a day.
Oh, I'm not really back, but thanks. They're great kids.
>I was just thinking that I should start announcing "POW"'s myself but I
>felt a bit presumptuous doing so.
Not presumptuous at all. Go for it. All a good POW takes is the
willingness to:
- dive down into the meat of a problem,
- locate the relevant code that might need attention,
- write it up cleanly, and
- give it an appealing subject line.
There are quite a number of folks on this list who are eminently
well-qualified to do this. You clearly fit the bill.
>Can you coordinate POW's Paul? They were always your baby. I and
>others can feed you suggestions if that makes it easier. I have a lot of
>ideas already.
As much as I'd love to -- writing POWs was very rewarding -- I just can't.
At the rate I'm going right now, my first POW would be three months from
now, and what we need is a regular flow of interesting POWs.
As for coordination, I'd be surprised if the POW flow exceeded the patch
flow or the commit flow, and we seem to collectively manage those quite
well. To put it another way -- the only real problem I can imagine is *too
many* good POWs, and that's a problem I think we'd all love to have. :-)
Paul,
who needs to relurk soon
PS: Since I spent this entire note politely declining, I will make the
following offer. If anyone's interested in writing POWs, but feels they're
being presumptuous, feel free to send me a draft for feedback before posting
it.
I can't promise 24-hour turnaround, but I will respond.
