Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 11:01:02AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 11:14:46AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>
> > Nobody seems to be so unhappy that they want to propose a general
> > resolution.
I don't know if I'd go that far. Some of us don't have the option. So,
we are stuck in limbo operating under a set of guidelines/requirements
we have no control over.
> Or they are not quite so arrogant as to think they could pick someone
> out of a hat who would *absolutely* be a better choice, which is more
> or less what any meaningful GR would have to do (one directing the DPL
> to select a new DAM, without saying who, is not terribly useful, IMO).
Could a GR not be used to set/change the operation requirements of a
delegated office, mandating operation guidelines/timeframes? Seems to
fall in line with 4.1(3). The DPL has still not provided a clear
statement about the delegated responsibilities or authority of the DAM.
> So instead, we try to make it clear that we *are* dissatisfied,
> without having to spend a lot of *everyone's* time on running a GR
> that many folks might vote against on principle ("We shouldn't be
> making this sort of decision for the DPL"), whether or not they think
> the NM process has issues.
And if both the DAM and DPL pointed ignore this dissatisfaction?
> If I thought a GR would actually provide a useful resolution to the
> problem, I wouldn't hesitate to put one up. I don't, in this case,
> mostly due to previous conversations. And so, instead, I'll restate
> the offer that I'd rather try to do something useful to help fix it -
> if anyone will say what *needs to be done*.
DAM needs to either step up and get the job he's been delegated done or
step down and allow someone else do the job. Status quo is broken,
action needs to be taken, preferrably one that institutes some
guideline/requirement of how the job is performed. Additionally,
reasoning for application delay needs to be open to public review, no
more secret reasoning.
--
Jamin W. Collins
Reply to: