On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 06:22:14PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 08:30:13AM +1100, Glenn McGrath wrote: > > If you look at the people that have given up on the NM process can you > > honestly say they that debian is better off without them... i dont think > > so. > > I agree that the NM process is currently frustrating for applicants, and > that we run the risk of losing valuable talent because of how difficult > it is to gain DAM approval. (I don't presume to know whether this has > happened in practice.) However, I don't think the advocate requirement > has ever been cited before as a cause of frustration, and I don't think > removing it is a good idea. I fail to see how the advocate requirement > could reasonably be seen as blocking the application of anyone who would > otherwise be accepted as a DD. > In addition, the advocate requirement is important in taking some of the burder off of AM's and the DAM. It was my advocate who told me how to get started participating in the project, well before I was anywhere near fit for the NM queue. The advocate also fulfills an important role, which is to introduce a prospective NM to the social process that is debian. The process of becoming a DD is more than just one of proving that one can push the right bits around. It also consists of learning about the social process of development, brainstorming, and decision making that makes debian what it is. We just don't produce a bunch of correct bits, but a carefully considered and reviewed group of complex structures. -- michael cardenas | lead software engineer, lindows.com hyperpoem.net | GNU/Linux software developer people.debian.org/~mbc | encrypted email preferred "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was and never will be." - Thomas Jefferson
Attachment:
pgphXxNxlCvLY.pgp
Description: PGP signature