by homeworld.redbacknetworks.com with SMTP; 26 Dec 1998 13:44:04 -0000
	by shell17.ba.best.com (8.9.1/8.9.0/best.sh) id FAA02955;
	Sat, 26 Dec 1998 05:42:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Todd Whitesel <toddpw@best.com>
Message-Id: <199812261342.FAA02955@shell17.ba.best.com>
Subject: Re: tree access
In-Reply-To: <87iuf7hjxd.fsf@jekyll.piermont.com> from "Perry E. Metzger" at "Dec 19, 98 04:59:58 pm"
To: perry@piermont.com
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 05:42:08 -0800 (PST)
Cc: netbsd-advocacy@netbsd.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> As heartwarming as all the recent "I volunteer" statements have been,
> the majority of people who have successfully made use of developer
> access have been people who first demonstrated strong ability to
> contribute beforehand. The bulk of people who've volunteered without a 
> track record haven't made it anywhere.
> 
> I would suggest that those who want to pitch in can do so without even 
> having tree access -- just find things you would like fixed, fix them
> and submit patches. PRs with good patches in them almost always get
> fixed immediately. If you can show that you really intend to
> contribute and have requisite ability, you'll likely get tapped.

Fine by me -- but I have to say that it should not have taken so long for
this statement to come out. The rationale expressed here should be on the
web page somewhere so we can point people at it.

See my post over on current-users about adding a "how to contribute" page
to netbsd.org. I think if we explain the rationale up front, we'll have a
lot more people being willing to abide by it.

Personally, if I was getting the cold shoulder from core about commit access
and much later found out that this was the rationale, but that no one could
be bothered to explain it to me, I'd be rather annoyed.

One wonders if this does not begin to explain some of the past reports from
folks allegedly "spurned" by NetBSD.

Todd Whitesel
toddpw @ best.com