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.
> 
> Regards,
> Ferris
> 
> --
> Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o>
> 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.

Mike Tindal