** On Jan 16, Anthony Towns scribbled: [snip] > > > (cf, the Tasks and Skills check). > > This is not how most of us started, including you and me. And now we > > are two very active members. > > Sure. No one's saying people who can only maintain a couple of lame packages > should be rejected merely because of that. Well, at least, I'm not, and I'm > fairly sure James and Joey aren't either. Ok, that's good to hear that. Now, I will speak just about myself and my own packages - most of them aren't lame (Pike, Caudium, pexts - all quite complex and big software packages, centericq - this one is certainly lame :), there are about 20 of them. So, having this said - see below for the rest of what I have to say... > > > And I mean, it'd be nice to not need to prioritise people, but we still > > > don't seem to be able to handle the volume of new maintainer applicants > > > we have effectively, so we need to do *something*. > > Uh, as far as I can see, the new maintainer team as a whole is doing fine, > > it's just the DAM bottleneck at issue here. > > I'm not really sure I agree with that. Take Neal's example: he waited a > little over a month for an AM to be assigned to him, and then took ten > days to get an account. In his case, the bottleneck was AM-assignment. My example: AM assignment - 3 months, AM processing my application - 6 days, waiting for the DAM approval and account - almost 4 months now. Total time a little over 7 months. In the same time a few dozens of applicants which maintain one or two packages were processed, accepted and blessed. So, I'm asking again - what's wrong? I asked my AM - he doesn't know anything is wrong with my application - it has been forwarded to the DAM. I suppose DAM won't answer my mails, so I don't even try writing him. The only remaining alternative is to ask it here - but here's no answer as well. I'm out of ideas. marek -- Visit: http://caudium.net - the Caudium WebServer /* A completely unrelated fortune */ "What do you do when your real life exceeds your wildest fantasies?" "You keep it to yourself." -- Broadcast News
Attachment:
pgpkek2WnlLcK.pgp
Description: PGP signature