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