[I am not subscribed to debian-newmaint.] On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 06:20:36PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote: > Yes. Replacing a single-person's vote with a committee vote is bound > to fail in the light of the reasons that would lead to several people > making such decisions. I don't know about others, but my opinion is that the main problem is that people are de facto "on hold" without being told that they are, or why. As with so many issues, it's not that we have a deficit of decision makers, it's that those decision makers often do not fulfill their responsibilities in a very visible way. As a consequence, they do not effectively hold themselves accountable to the rest of the Project, which they nominally serve. If a/the DAM is personally suspicious of an NM applicant and decides to let him cool his heels for 6 months, I have less of a problem with that than I do the fact that no one is ever informed of this decision. The NM site is rendered inaccurate and misleading by this failure of process. 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)". -- G. Branden Robinson | I must despise the world which does Debian GNU/Linux | not know that music is a higher branden@debian.org | revelation than all wisdom and http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | philosophy. -- Ludwig van Beethoven
Attachment:
pgp5Rup1zm3Gl.pgp
Description: PGP signature