Hi, Joseph Carter: > This seems to come up what, every six months or less? To save time and > and once again slay this rotting corpse of a beaten horse: > Thank you. :-/ > > "Hmm, that's a good point - let's complicate the NM process to force James [...] Well, I haven't proposed that, and neither has anybody else -- so far... > If he gets a bad feeling about the applicant somewhere along the way, he > will put the application aside for later. The problem here is that there doesn't seem to be a status update, which leads to the applicant being frustrated, voicing their disapproval, and that ends up being more work for everybody involved than if James would have added two lines to some sort of status field in the NM list. :-/ > Unless someone else who is unequivocably qualified to determine whether or > not a person should be a developer steps forward, absolutely no amount of > process is going to make a damned bit of difference. Right, but ... well, seeing that this is a job which needs to be doing... Let's say it this way: I would seriously consider it, except that I haven't even started my own application. :-/ > same job any better. The final stages of the NM process come down to a > single judgement call. If there is disagreement, who is right? Until The person who approves of the new maintainer is right until proven otherwise. > Of course, these are just my opinions, I could be wrong. Either way, I > reserve the privelege of abusing the first person to suggest more process > as the solution to NM. > "privilege". ;-) For what it's worth, I agree. -- Matthias Urlichs | noris network AG | http://smurf.noris.de/
Attachment:
pgpQhfGONJLxL.pgp
Description: PGP signature