Re: DAM and NEW queues processing
On 23/06/09 at 16:09 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 04:45:10PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> >On 23/06/09 at 16:18 +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote:
> >>
> >> And we already have DM to avoid the frustration to not being able to upload
> >> trivial packaging changes.
> >> Now DM has been here for some time, we might consider improve it, but that is
> >> another issues.
> >
> >I've been advocating people "too early" (i.e, I've advocated people so
> >that they could start NM, while in the meantime, I wouldn't have
> >advocated them for DM). The reason is that the "unassigned applicants"
> >list is huge, so, when considering whether you should advocate someone
> >or not, you basically have to wonder whether the person will behave well
> >when he gets an AM in 6 months.
> >
> >It all depends on the meaning of the advocacy. Does it mean "I believe
> >that X is ready to be a DD now" (which would be stupid, since X will
> >wait at least a year before becoming a DD) or "I believe that X is ready
> >to start the NM process".
>
> So you're complaining that the process takes too long, but you've been
> adding people into it when they're not ready and therefore adding to
> the length of the queue. That looks like a problem right there.
I don't see the point of waiting until someone is ready to be a DD to
advocate him, if he/she is still going to wait for 6 months (in the best
case) or a year or more to become a DD. Also, looking at the various
drop outs from NM, it seems that I'm not the only one advocating people
that are not 100% ready to become a DD.
The last NM who "graduated" after I advocated him was Barry deFreese,
and I don't really regret advocating him early (actually, I don't
remember if it was really early or not) ;)
> No, I'm not saying that's the *only* problem. I'd be the first to
> agree that the NM setup is far from perfect, but I'm also not
> convinced that we should be making it *too* much easier for the
> applicants.
I *never* said that I wanted to make the NM process easier (in the sense
of "requiring less skills") for the applicants. I want to make it
shorter, more interesting (i.e the applicant should be able to do real
work), and requiring less manpower from the current DDs.
Imagine a process where we "only" require 5 recommendation emails from
existing DDs. First, it is obvious that different requirements would
apply to those recommendations, than to the current advocate emails:
since the applicant would be a DD almost immediately after the 5 emails
have been received, it is clear that current DDs would only advocate
people when they are fully ready to be a DD. And from the applicant
point of view, getting 5 DDs to write an email recommending you looks a
lot more difficult that answering 50 questions for which the answers are
all available on the internet. It requires a lot more social skills, and
probably a lot more work to get 5 DDs to trust you enough to say "I want
X to become a DD now, provided that 4 other DDs agree."
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Reply to: