Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Jamin W. Collins wrote:
>On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 11:09:05AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Work requiring CVS access is made more awkward without developer
>> status, as is work requiring access to the random architecture boxes.
>
>So, there are times that working through a sponsor is a hinderance and
>burnden.  However, rather than addressing the real problem (everyones
>wait time for DAM approval), special case kludges were put in place that
>only serve to piss off those that are then made second class citizens by
>them.

What's the alternative? The DAM is responsible for making the final
decision that leads to someone entering Debian. It's a position that
requires someone who can spend sufficient time and effort to go beyond
what the AM does - stuff like behaviour on mailing lists and past
interaction with Free software development is outside the remit of the
application manager, but should be taken into account when a developer
is accepted. James is unable to process applications any faster, so for
the process to be speeded up we'd need to find someone else who can be
trusted to perform work to the same level. It's something that's a huge
responsibility and consumes large amounts of time, and I don't see many
people jumping at the opportunity.

>This kludge of accelerating special case applicants seems very different
>from most DDs approach to policy or pretty much anything else.  From the
>posts I've seen on this list, a number of DDs are normally appossed to
>any kludge fix or workaround.  Yet, here is a rather significant kludge
>in place.

Sometimes we resort to kludges because the right thing to do isn't
practical. What's probaby missing is more useful communication of what
it is that the DAM is doing at that stage of things. It's never really
explained during the process.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.devel@srcf.ucam.org