Hi! On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 01:30:33PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > > If he gets a bad feeling about the applicant somewhere along the way, he > > will put the application aside for later. > The problem here is that there doesn't seem to be a status update, which > leads to the applicant being frustrated, voicing their disapproval, and > that ends up being more work for everybody involved than if James would > have added two lines to some sort of status field in the NM list. :-/ I disagree. The problem appears to be that James is severly overloaded, and the project can't seem to agree on appointing other people to distribute the load. Of course, appointing the "wrong" person(s) to this key position could lead to very bad effects, but having the project coming to a grinding halt over time doesn't make it really better, imho. > > Unless someone else who is unequivocably qualified to determine whether or I don't feel qualified, but have some names in mind that imho are, and would > > not a person should be a developer steps forward, absolutely no amount of > > process is going to make a damned bit of difference. > Right, but ... well, seeing that this is a job which needs to be doing... > Let's say it this way: I would seriously consider it, except that I > haven't even started my own application. :-/ support Matthias' application if he wanted to take the task, to name one. > > same job any better. The final stages of the NM process come down to a > > single judgement call. If there is disagreement, who is right? Until > The person who approves of the new maintainer is right until proven > otherwise. Yes. Replacing a single-person's vote with a committee vote is bound to fail in the light of the reasons that would lead to several people making such decisions. Best, --Toni++
Attachment:
pgpquV66HZRYh.pgp
Description: PGP signature