From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QqmsE-0007gr-Ut for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2011 14:01:43 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 83EE921C0D9; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 14:01:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B204621C0D6 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 14:01:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (mayo-nat4.mayo.edu [129.176.197.23]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: dberkholz) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2B48D1B400A for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 14:01:18 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 09:01:16 -0500 From: Donnie Berkholz To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years Message-ID: <20110809140116.GB25611@comet.mayo.edu> References: <20110804201045.GG4840@comet.ucsd.edu> <1312497095.2864.1@NeddySeagoon> <20110805075151.GC4475@comet.ucsd.edu> <20110805105054.GL81662@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="UHN/qo2QbUvPLonB" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110805105054.GL81662@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: a7f6f32f499b556052c6fc7025d4e6b0 --UHN/qo2QbUvPLonB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 12:50 Fri 05 Aug , Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 05-08-2011 00:51:51 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > > I think we have to agree to disagree on this one. The corporate norm= =20 > > > of checks and balances is to have applications for expenditure, be it= =20 > > > for trivial sums or large capital items, to be signed off by=20 > > > someone/some group with no interest in the outcome, so they can make= =20 > > > an objective decision. > > >=20 > > > e.g. I can sign off travel and expenses for others but not for myself. > >=20 > > At least in my experience, each division would receive its own budget= =20 > > with independent spending authority. This is subject to auditing but=20 > > only in retrospect, not prior to the expense taking place. >=20 > Do you suggest the Council should have money to spend? No, we're just way out on a weird analogy limb here. --=20 Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Council Member / Sr. Developer Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.com --UHN/qo2QbUvPLonB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk5BPawACgkQXVaO67S1rtvxBQCePbILFlwVgtLQWdyCou7GRuem c7cAoOiD9kJFU4DqdYm1aByIZ5dHQzrd =Lkct -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --UHN/qo2QbUvPLonB--