[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 Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 06:31:10PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
[snip]
> And not to name names, but I don't think relaxing the review process is
> the right solution because even in the current system I've seen some
> developers come out of the NM queue with still *way* too much learning
> ahead of them to justify trusting them to make independent decisions as
> developers.  Just IMHO.  Streamlining is good, but not if there's a net
> drop in Debian's quality as a result.
[snip]

Then there is a problem with the requirements given to AMs (not strict
enough), or there's a problem with AM's being too lenient in the T&S
checks. It should not be up to the DAM to fix flaws in earlier stages of
the process, as it appears to be the case now. But at any rate, I think
the problem with the NM queue is not the DAMs having too much work, too
little time; the problem is that there is no *feedback* as to why a
particular NM is being given the silent treatment at the DAM stage.

I don't think anyone would have a problem with the current NM process if
they were told up front, "you're being rejected/put on hold because of A,
B, C, ...". This is the point I keep trying to bring up, and keep getting
no answer to. While I fully respect the DAM's decision to accept/reject
applicants using the constitutional powers granted to him, I do *not*
agree that he can arbitrarily ignore otherwise-qualified applicants
without any explanation whatsoever. And if this is because of the DAM's
workload, then adding more DAMs seems to be the logical solution.


T

-- 
BREAKFAST.COM halted...Cereal Port Not Responding. --YHL

Attachment: pgpIdvDRUFmTm.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: