From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ns2.osuosl.org (ns2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.131]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j57EBH90023168 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2005 14:11:18 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ns2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9F891206B1 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2005 07:11:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ns1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 14205-57 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2005 07:11:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell.osuosl.org (shell.osuosl.org [140.211.166.149]) by ns2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 081D41205DC for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2005 07:11:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by shell.osuosl.org (Postfix, from userid 1003) id D40002F401C; Tue, 7 Jun 2005 07:11:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by shell.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC3BB420004 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2005 07:11:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 07:11:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Deedra Waters To: gentoo-devrel@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-devrel] Proposal In-Reply-To: <1118147184.7209.75.camel@polylepis.inforead.com> Message-ID: References: <42A4DB0E.30905@gentoo.org> <1118147184.7209.75.camel@polylepis.inforead.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-devrel@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-devrel@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at osuosl.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 tagged_above=-999.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL, BAYES_00 X-Spam-Level: X-Archives-Salt: 24597663-6371-4c64-83e9-beeb150067ee X-Archives-Hash: a1392f12865cffc6ad76e0f4a0abfab7 I agree with you, but i suspect that we're going to end up with at least 1 or 2 managers that will end up being investigators. Over the past year I've tried to bring on people who aren't managers at grant's suggestion before, but that's not always easy, and depending on which way the metastructure stuff goes, we could just as easily end up with more. On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Ferris McCormick wrote: > Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 12:26:23 +0000 > From: Ferris McCormick > Reply-To: gentoo-devrel@lists.gentoo.org > To: gentoo-devrel@lists.gentoo.org > Subject: Re: [gentoo-devrel] Proposal > > On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 17:07 -0700, Deedra Waters wrote: > > Only question i have about this is why can't managers be on the > > investigative team. In a sense, i can sort of see why not, but i also > > think that they should be allowed. Devrel does have a high content of > > managers in it, though that number isn't as high as it used to be. > > On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Michael Tindal wrote: > > > Realistically, there might not be a choice. That depends on the > composition of devrel, of course, and if the population count forces > managers to be investigators, then so be it. > > It's better not, however. Ideally, an appeals panel should work only > from the record before it and the arguments made by the parties > involved. Personally, if I were on an appeals panel hearing a case I > had previously investigated, I'd have trouble putting aside opinions I > had formed during the appeals process (but I emphasise this is related > to my own personal makeup). > > If nothing else, the ultimate outcome of any case decided on appeal > would look more legitimate if investigation, adjudication, and appeal > were handled by separate bodies. > > Or, maybe I'm just being to legalistic here? > > > > > -- > > Deedra Waters - Gentoo developer relations, accessibility and infrastructure - > > dmwaters@gentoo.org > > Gentoo linux: http://www.gentoo.org > > > Regards, > Ferris > -- Deedra Waters - Gentoo developer relations, accessibility and infrastructure - dmwaters@gentoo.org Gentoo linux: http://www.gentoo.org -- gentoo-devrel@gentoo.org mailing list