The community is small, so I wouldn't toss nurturing out.
(I sent an earlier email just to James, clarifying that I
was not voting in favor of totally open evolution.  I really
think there is tremendous value in the work that has been done
coalescing the netrek server code base.)

But I was trying to say we should retain some mechanism by
which new developers can try ideas and judge the results with their
own eyes.  This is the opportunity for the more experienced "nurturers"
to contemplate changes from newbie developers, while those newbie
developers also get access to a real player base for testing.

I think human nature is that most new prospective developers are more
likely to take their initial step if there is a perceived process.
Having "open" slots on the meta server (even if only scheduled once a week)
would allow an individual to prototype a change on his/her own time and
bring it to "show and tell."  If there is a positive reception to the
change, then it can open up a discussion for how to implement it in the
"production" code.

On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 10:51:57AM +1000, James Cameron wrote:
> So what you are expressing is the evolution of netrek by experimentation
> and testing variations versus the nurture and protection of what is
> already present?
> -- 
> James Cameron    mailto:quozl at