by redmail.netbsd.org with SMTP; 22 Feb 1999 21:13:53 -0000
	by beer.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA16109;
	Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:13:42 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <199902222113.OAA16109@beer.org>
To: Julian Assange <proff@iq.org>
Cc: Michael Graff <explorer@flame.org>, current-users@netbsd.org,
        netbsd-users@netbsd.org, netbsd-advocacy@netbsd.org
Subject: Re: Community Issues ** LONG ** 
From: Herb Peyerl <hpeyerl@beer.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <16106.919718021.1@lager>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:13:41 -0700

Julian Assange <proff@iq.org>  wrote:
 > What this needs is `people-with-power' in NetBSD
 > *actively-approaching* people who are NOT ace kernel
 > hackers. Currently `ace kernel hacking' seems to be the only
 > optimisation parameter in the NetBSD meritocracy. This view *needs to
 > be changed*. This is one area that Jordon was very successful in, no

This is not correct.  I am far from being an 'ace kernel hacker'. I bet
I admitted that before anyone else had time to think it.

 > We could do a lot on working towards a greater sense of inclusiveness.
 > For example, instead of waiting for people to hound core for cvs
 > access, core could *actively approach* those people who looked like
 > they might make a useful contribution in the future. A sense of
 > ownership will increase both productivity and code-quality. I often
 > see NetBSD patches on someone's home page, occasional quite good ones,
 > and am saddened to realise that the person concerned doesn't have cvs
 > access.

This is also incorrect.  I would bet that 75% of the recent additions
to developers have been people who were solicited by other developers
rather than the other way around.  In fact, I did not ask to be a
developer.  I was asked if I wanted to be.