Ferris McCormick wrote:
> I sent this to gentoo-core yesterday, but gentoo-core seems to be
> missing in action. I am not sure who, if anyone, received it.
> gentoo-devrel is the intended audience, anyway.
> If you are seeing your second or third copy of this message, I
> apologise, but I can't tell what mail sent to @genroo.org addresses
> yesterday made it, which are still queued, and which are lost.
> I have now read http://dev.gentoo.org/~urilith/devrel-proposal.txt
> and still like it a lot. At this point, I'd like to suggest a few textual
> changes which have no effect on the proposal besides wording changes:
> 1. As I mentioned previously, I think the procedure we are discussing
> is better described as a hearing rather than a trial (but the verb
> 'tried' is fine with me).
> 2. In the spirit of point 1, I'd change 'Defendant' to 'Respondent'
> since the developer involved is responding to a complaint more
> than defending an action. (And, it's a "kinder, gentler" word.)
> 3. For uniformity, I'd try to keep the final policy in present tense
> imperative (rather than subjunctive, unless subjunctive is
> intended for expressing a preference rather than a requirement). 4.
> The last word of the proposal is actually spelled 'moot'.
> Sorry to seem excessively pedantic (well, picky), but if people agree with
> me on any of these, we are talking editing changes which have no
> substantive effect (oe at least, I don't intend any), and are more easily
> done now than later.
> I'm picking at this because I like it. If I didn't like it, I wouldn't
> care how it read.
> Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <email@example.com>
> Developer, Gentoo Linux (sparc)
Okay, I've made the changes I could find. I also can't believe I put
mute instead of moot, thanks for catching that!
In any case, the new version has been uploaded.