Re: Debian New Maintainer Status on nm.debian.org
Ben Armstrong <synrg@sanctuary.nslug.ns.ca> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 06:48:51PM +0100, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> > If one applicant has waitet 185 Days for his approval, how should that
> > number ever get erased from the list? The 185 Days can't become
> > shorter therefore the number should never drop.
> >
> > If people who are approved are deleted from the calculation, then that
> > should be called "oldest waiting" or something better. Also the
> > average should be over all appications within a reasonable time (one
> > year?) just to make the figure meaningfull.
>
> I assume these numbers help two groups of people:
>
> First, the NM team wants to know "how are we doing?" Watching that "avg
> wait" number fall is going to be a good indicator of how the process has
> improved and applicants are having to wait less time to get through.
> Historical numbers only give a gloomier picture of progress, answering
> only "how badly did we do in the past?". Numbers for who is on the queue
> at the moment tell them how they are doing *now*.
I think a "How old is the oldest" also tells how good the NM Team
is. if that number drops one can see that they are working, if it
rises one each day they are not doing anything. But then that should
not be called Max in my eyes.
> Similarly, the applicant wants to know "how long can I expect to wait?"
> The "avg wait" number tells the applicant how they're doing relative to
> other people on the queue. Historical numbers are not relevant because
> the process is continuously improving (in theory :)
I think the NM Process fluctuates around some performace as people go
on holiday or get bored or new people join. So an overall average
should give a good estimate how long it takes at any time.
To also consider changes in the speed (due to more people or
procedure) is why I opted to a limited history, One year might be too
much, but say the last 100 people or so would be good.
> Now, you may feel that the NM team needs to do some sort of pennance,
> hanging the albatross of their "worst case" numbers around their neck.
> But I believe they deserve to see what kind of progress they are making
> with the applicants that they have left on the queue.
The currently oldest and (limited) overal avg would mean that they can
get rid of realy bad numbers quickly (by handling the currently
oldest), but also they get a small penalty for letting it come so far,
since the avg will not change for some time, unless they continually
work fast. On the other hand, if they go on holidy for a month, the
currently oldest will age 30 days and the avg will just grow slightly.
I think those numbers might be more meaningfull and consistent.
MfG
Goswin
PS: Just my 2 cc worth of thought.
Reply to: