Scripsit MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Will anybody ever, in any context, get told: "You will have to route >> that request through your team leader"? > It's actually pointless to put it quite like that in a small > team consensus structure. There's nothing to be gained from > obstruction rather than a straight refusal: both can "use up" > goodwill done badly. I think it's more likely it will be "we're > uninterested: is another group willing to do it?" I think we're talking at cross-purposes. I was imagining a situation where I needed, say, to have a hopelessly buggy package of mine removed from testing, but got told by the ftpmaster team that they needed to have the removal confirmed by my team leader. It would not make sense for the ftpmasters to say that they are not interested in removing it, but that I should look for another group that would be willing to do it. Or, I might be interested in volunteering as an AM, but the NM chief had to tell me that I needed by team leader's approval before I could be trusted to interact with NM applicants. Or whatever. (I now understand from Andreas' answer that these scenarios are not realistic because his model apparently does not involve me being subordinate to a single team leader, the implications in his platform nonwithstanding. However, I'd still like to understand your reply). -- Henning Makholm "Jeg kunne ikke undg� at bem�rke at han gik p� h�nder."
