>
>>1) Why should we trust you with our code?
>Is it really neccessary to reveal full sources? I think not.
>Maybe I'm mistaken, of course. But, lets say, if I am doing
>shifters revamp (just for example), I dont really need the
>access to spells of invoker, or how shop system works. At
>least, at the beginning of the work. And as I understand you,
>first few tasks will be much simpler and require much less
>current sources reading than shifters revamp

I think you misunderstood. Why would we trust you with any source code at all? You haven't done anything to earn that trust.

>
>>2) Why would we want staff "without obligations"? So if we
>>assign you something there's no guarantee you'll ever work
>on
>>it?
>Well, maybe because something its better than nothing? I agree
>that well rounded, all knowing, hardly working member is
>better, but you still have more tasks/ideas to work on, than
>volunteers to do this.

No, I think nothing is better, to be quite frank. We wind up releasing source code, someone works on it, it doesn't work and we aren't happy with it, the person we had no reason to trust to begiin with whines and gets mad at our rigid stance on building things and the player gives the code out to get even.

>
>>3) In general, we want well-rounded staff. Even if you had
>>the access, if you haven't demonstrated an understanding of
>>how the game runs (building an area is a very good check of
>>this), you're likely to build code that doesn't work well
>>within the game, either stylistically, or mechanically.
>Alas, I can not build areas, though I am interested a bit.
>Moreeven, I dont think its really needed for CF now.

I disagree. There are so many areas that need to be rewritten because it doesn't hold up to the standards that the current Imps have require.

>
>I think the chances of writing 'bad' code are less when it is
>concrete written task, so the one just codes, not creates the
>algorithm.
>
>Still disagree?

Yep.

>