On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 01:17:27PM -0500, Paul Baker wrote: > On Thursday, October 3, 2002, at 12:44 PM, Branden Robinson wrote: > >The DAMs are not, in my opinion, entitled to keep their own counsel > >about why they refuse to approve a new-maintainer applicant who has > >passed all the other checks, by "losing them in the system" for several > >months. At the very least, the applicant's AM should be informed of > >this, and the applicant's status should be placed "on hold". In most > >cases, I doubt extreme discretion is warranted, and the reason for the > >applicant being placed on hold should be publicly viewable at > >nm.debian.org. > >Or perhaps this phenomenon is so common that all applicants who are > >waiting on DAM approval for more than, say, 30 days should > >automatically > >have their status changed to "on hold", with an explanation of "unknown > >(awaiting DAM feedback)". > Branden, make it happen and I'll vote for you in the next DPL election > assuming I'm a DD by then. ;-) Oh sure, give the DAM *more* reasons to hold up applicant processing... :) Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgp0WtF7zc7Gr.pgp
Description: PGP signature