[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

On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 04:26:24PM -0500, Brian Nelson wrote:
> 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.

That is precisely the problem. To me, the problem is not so much that too
few people are getting through; the problem is that people don't know WHY
they aren't getting through. Again, it all comes back to lack of
information. There needs to be enough communication to applicants so that
they know *why* their application is stalling. The DAM probably has valid
reasons for stalling these applications, but until the reasons are
publicly known, nobody knows if there are valid reasons, or if something
else is going on behind the scenes.

> 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.

Yes. Any unstated requirements ought to be posted on the NM site where
NM's can easily find them. And if the DAM feels that AM's are too lax,
then the checklist on the NM site should be clarified and perhaps made
stricter. If the requirements to become a DD *are* that strict, why hide
it from the NM site? The criteria stated on the NM site should be the
same criteria used by the AM's and DAM(s) for letting people become DD's.

Or if the DAM feels that Debian is growing too big, and maintainership
should only be granted to exceptional cases, then this must be stated up
front as well---so that (1) prospective NMs know what's going on, and (2)
existing DD's can make a decision on this issue.

At any rate, the bottom line is that there is insufficient (public) 
information about what's going on, and the lack of info is a source of
needless frustration on the part of NM's. 


Indifference will certainly be the downfall of mankind, but who cares? --
Miquel van Smoorenburg

Attachment: pgp1_AALNNlMV.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: