Gentoo Archives: gentoo-devrel

From: Ferris McCormick <fmccor@g.o>
To: gentoo-devrel@l.g.o
Cc: Michael Tindal <urilith@g.o>, gentoo-core@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-devrel] Re: [gentoo-core] Devrel Proposal
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 13:40:42
Hash: SHA1

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 addresses yesterday made 
it, which are still queued, and which are lost.

I have now read
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) <fmccor@g.o>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (sparc)
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

gentoo-devrel@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-devrel] Re: [gentoo-core] Devrel Proposal Michael Tindal <urilith@g.o>