This is what Marcus Brinkmann at Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 12:17:55AM +0100 wrote: [chop-chop] > This would backfire to the trust worthiness of the DAM. People are expected > to keep a lively interest in Debian. If their application seems to be > stalled, and they don't complain, isn't that a sign that they care less? > You can't have either way, you need to decide which position you take. > > Marcus I'm not a Debian developer or anything, but the current system appears to have a flaw, in that the DAM has the power to delay a candidates application until they get fed up and leave. This doesn't look good from my perspective. It puts too much power/responsibility in the hands of a few. Here's a thought. How about the NM queue is made FIFO. That is, if you entered the queue, you would be fairly confident that you would be approved in a fair amount of time. It would also mean that the range of waiting periods would be narrowed (~2-~200), and there would be less complaints about "I've been in the queue for so long and he got in straight away"-type complaints. Of course, sometimes candidates would not be able to be approved when they reach the top of the queue, (I can't think of an example cause), so they may need to be moved to one side, so that the queue is not held up by a bad application. So that huge swathes of people aren't delayed indefinitely for no good reason, the delay should be somehow arbitrated by 3 or 4 'independents'. How this would work is a candidate would enter the NM queue at the back. As maintainers are approved, their position in the queue would move forward. When a candidate reaches the front, the DAM processes the application, and the candidate becomes a maintainer. In the case that the candidate's application cannot be processed, the DAM should contact the candidate and the AM. If all agree that the delay is justified, the candidate is delayed until the problems with the application are fixed. If an agreement cannot be reached within a reasonable amount of time (more than a week is not reasonable), arbitrators could be called from a pool of volunteers. (the selection should be random, so that arbiters cannot be chosen to automatically support one side) When the problem has been resolved, the candidate is placed back in the queue at a position equivalent to their position before being delayed. (ie. A delayed candidate that entered the queue on 21 March, would reenter the queue before someone who entered 10 April but after someone who entered 3 March) This is not meant as a criticism of the current DAM, rather the system they work under. A possibility of an abuse of power exists, as far as I can see, and should be eliminated before an abuse of power can occur. BTW I think the Debian project is doing a great job, but the NM queue seems to be a constant source of complaints, so I make a suggestion. I hope that I'm not just going over old ideas, and that this suggestion will not be ignored by those with the power to change things. Thanks, James, -- Doko ni datte, hito wa tsunagatte iru. -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS/M/S d- s+:+ a--- C+++$ UL++++$ P+>+++ L++++$ E- W+ N++ o K++ w-- O? M+ V? !PS !PE Y+ PGP++ t+ 5++ X+ ?R>+ tv b+++ DI+ D++ G e>++++ h! !r y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Attachment:
pgpWntd4B9zcN.pgp
Description: PGP signature