* Brian Nelson (pyro@debian.org) wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes: > > No. There's alot more to it than what the AM does, as is obvious when > > you look at the AM templates and then consider what people tend to get > > rejected by the DAM for. The AMs do a pretty good job and handle alot > > of the 'easier' questions for the AM report but the DAM has to look at > > more than just the report for each applicant. > > If an AM is doing nothing more than using the NM templates and > processing the applicant's answers, then that AM is not doing a good > job. An AM should do a thorough background check of the applicant, > including mailing list activity, BTS usage (both bug response time and > resolve time), package upload frequency, and relationships with > developers (particularly sponsors). "Nothing more"? You make it sound like going through the templates and looking at BTS usage, etc is trivial. It's not. I can tell you that I certainly don't do a 'thorough background check' on my applicants as an AM; neither does the DAM really, but I expect he certainly does more than I do. There's a division of work here to some extent, and in general it seems to work pretty well from everything I've seen. I'm glad the DAM approval isn't just a rubber-stamp. > There's no reason any of these checks should be the DAM's > responsibility. And people wonder why the NM queue tends to be > processed so slowly... Except that it's not actually processed all that slowly, and the DAM is actually pretty good at being able to do such checks. Additionally, I *like* that the DAM does a review of everything and wouldn't have any problem with him rejecting an applicant of mine and wouldn't feel that it was against me in any way. Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature