One of the disagreements that seems to be evolving is whether or not the
project formally supports a task-oriented structure.  A couple of people
have asserted that people might claim tasks (such as myself) and by virtue
of claiming the task, be provided with some notion of ownership that is
supported in a more formal sense.  Others have pointed out that in a
volunteer environment, people simply do what they want to regardless of
any task ownership, and would prefer a first-past-the-post model to a task
ownership model.  My assumption had been that disagreement existed to some
extent based on the nature and strength of ownership, but it seems that
I've made a fundamental assumption there that not everyone agrees with.

My feeling has always been that imposing some modicrum of structure is
important: to avoid people stepping on toes, people can announce what
they're working on, and expect that others might avoid replicating the
work, or at least be communicated with before it happens.  The rationale
for this lies both in efficiency (non-replication of work), and to avoid
toe-stepping, since there's a natural notion of ownership over work done,
and a desire to not see it discarded.  Perhaps this can't be supported in
our environment.

Robert N M Watson             FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Project
[EMAIL PROTECTED]      NAI Labs, Safeport Network Services

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to