[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: A birthday message and a RFS for Film Gimp 0.13-1

"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> writes:

> On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 11:30:02PM -0800, Tom Marshall wrote:
> [snip]
>> under sponsorship at almost any time.  However, the prospect of an unbounded
>> waiting period with no feedback has made me reconsider whether I really want
>> to go through with it.  If new DD's are not important enough to the
>> organization to be given prompt and considerate attention (at least a
>> timeline and some feedback), why should I join that organization?  Existing
>> DD's have volunteered to package my application and I could simply accept
>> their offer without the extra stress.
> Note, however, that people *are* getting through the NM process, in spite
> of the perceived problems. Unfortunately, the few who aren't getting
> through aren't getting any feedback, and they are complaining about it
> because of the lack of information.

Well, since the week ending October 20, in which 16 applicants became

* 69 people submitted applications
* 18 applicants were recommended by their AM's
* 3 applicants became maintainers (2 of which were "fast-tracked"
  because of their work on d-i)

which doesn't reflect the 30 or so applicants who have been awaiting
DAM approval since before October 20.

So, in past 78 days, exactly 3 applicants (or only 1 if you ignore
special circumstances) have become maintainers, out of 59 valid
candidates.  I don't think you can say with a straight face that
people are getting through the NM process, especially if you consider
that there isn't any reason (that I have seen spoken publicly) to make
an applicant wait for DAM approval at all.

If it is the intention of the DAM to make applicants wait for approval
(for example, to prove their commitment to the project by being active
maintainers for 6 months or more), then that should be stated as part
of the NM process.  Or, if the DAM believes that too many weak
candidates are getting AM recommendations, and thus he has to spent
too much time weeding through applications, then the AM's criteria
should be revised.  Right now, obviously something is very broken.

Curse my natural showmanship!

Attachment: pgp95mCgotVLw.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: