Subject: RE: Cygwin participation threshold
From: "Todd Goodman" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>, "'Christopher Faylor'" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 10:44:53 -0500

> Steve Morris writes:
[SNIP]
> Personal note: I attempted to sign up for the cygwin developers
> mailing list. I wasn't ready to commit to specific work but I wanted
> to get a feel for the level of mutual support and how the team
> interacted. I intended to silently lurk a while and then step into a
> more active role as I found a place to contribute. Apparently my
> justification and commitment didn't seem strong enough because I was
> silently excluded. No explanation, no apology. I just wasn't added to
> the list. It didn't leave a good taste in my mouth or predispose me to
> step up my level of commitment to this particular freeware project.

I had the same experience.  A request for more information (which I
forwarded) but no response after that.

I can certainly understand wanting to keep usage questions, etc from
the developers list and I believe it's a reasonable rule to keep the
list restricted to those who contribute.

However, one of the best ways to get your feet wet and find a place
*to* contribute is to lurk on a developers list for a while.

As is likely the case with most who aren't active contributors, it is
available time at this point that keeps me from contributing more.

If I was able to lurk on the developers list then I could more easily
judge what I might be able to work on.  If something looked like it
would fit with my available time then I might be able to contribute.
If I knew I might have more available time, I could see about something
else.

As it is now, I have no idea what even requires more work.  Everything
works well for me.  :-)

Just my $.02.

Thanks for all the good work,

Todd Goodman

[SNIP]
> Steve Morris
> [email-masked]

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to [email-masked]