From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EFKuC-0004xI-0d for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:13:40 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j8E08LXM032757; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:08:21 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j8E06eH6028873 for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:06:41 GMT Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=home.wh0rd.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EFKrv-0002w3-Ht for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:11:19 +0000 Received: (qmail 22205 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2005 20:08:16 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO vapier) (192.168.0.2) by 192.168.0.1 with SMTP; 13 Sep 2005 20:08:16 -0400 From: Mike Frysinger Organization: wh0rd.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council meeting, Thursday 15th, 1900 UTC Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:11:22 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <4325D12A.5050601@gentoo.org> <200509131947.28908.vapier@gentoo.org> <432767C8.103@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <432767C8.103@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200509132011.22368.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 36e6b570-ec4a-4437-aed7-ce2214da7804 X-Archives-Hash: 625ab8ca17b782df861ad74b39862fe3 On Tuesday 13 September 2005 07:59 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > as avenj pointed out, current 'mission statement' of devrel says that > > they handle the issue of actually revoking a dev's access > > I thought this was written somewhere too, but I can't seem to find it > anywhere. Do you know where it says this? main project page for devrel http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/index.xml > It certainly says they're responsible for adding and removing > developers, but I don't see anything about them being solely responsible > for revoking access. no, nowhere does it say 'devrel is the only team which may revoke access', but it is the only team which says they can and i'd prefer it stay that way -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list