On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 11:48:40PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 11:43:57PM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote:
> > John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> writes:
> > > > I am much more in favour of the other two options:
> > > > * do the reverse and reject if not approved in a certain timeframe
> > > That makes zero sense. We should *officially* reject qualified
> > > developers because of lack of time, personal vendetta, or whatnot?
> > No it would make perfectly sense. If people within a month can't
> > produce a working debian package we shouldn't waste preciouse beucracy
> > on them.
> As far as I kept track of it, we are talking about the last stage of the
> application, the DAM approval. At this time, the applicant already has
> given proof of his capabilities.
The applicant's given evidence that an AM thinks is acceptable for
inclusion into Debian. The quality of AM's varies, I'm not sure by
how much. Some are incredibly good; at least in the past some haven't
been. The DAM's there to judge whether the AM's right, and the applicant's
evidence suffices for proof, or not. AIUI, you don't even have to be a
developer yourself to be an AM.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
-- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
Attachment:
pgpkL9aei7LZP.pgp
Description: PGP signature