=- John R. Dennison wrote on Fri 21.Mar'08 at 14:44:52 -0500 -= > Rado seems to think that there is some huge pool of volunteers to > draw from. Sadly, this is not the case. Certainly there are not as many volunteers of the capacity of the mentioned core team. But there might be some more with less capacity, which could be worked into the system if their part could/would be reduced below their threshold. The question is what you prefer: a (too) small number of trusted and highly qualified members, or a bigger number of not so potent members? I suspect the latter has more chances to get something going again (relax the thresholds, kind of start over, rebuild clue from the bottom). I guess I'm alone with this consideration. > 5 people that have contributed anything in the past few months, > all of which were server patches. There are a couple people that > maintain the web site. There are a couple more that manage various > parts of the infrastructure. And that's really about it. But altogether that's like 8 people? Because several of them do more than just 1 thing. Of which like 2-4 do the recurring work? And those are low on time. > I would be happy to volunteer to build binaries except that as far > as I am concerned that's a position of trust, both within the > circle of developers and within the community and I do not feel I > have earned that level of trust within either group. If you haven't, how much harder is it for anyone else to get this trust? What does it take? How long does it take? Why does it need this? Why not for the sake of progress let you handle it anyway, just to get moving again? -- © Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal! EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude. You're responsible for ALL you do: you get what you give.