Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 10:17:25PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> >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?
A more responsive DAM, one that has time for the tasks that the job
requires. This would reduce the wait time for DAM approval and remove
the need for "special treatment".
> 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.
Where are these requirements documented? No one (DPL included) has been
able to provide a listing of DAMs responsibilities and authority.
> 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.
If it consumes such large amounts of time (and I'm not saying it
doesn't) then perhaps someone with less on their plate than James should
be doing it. It seems he's got a number of other responsibilities that,
more than likely, take considerable amounts of his time.
Developer Accounts Manager (DAM)
You say that we'd need to find someone "who can be trusted to perform
work to the same level". I don't see that James *is* doing the work
he's supposed to be doing. In fact, I see quite the opposite, he's
*not* doing the work. That's why we have this problem. Sure it's a
sensitive position that requires trust in the person filling it.
However, a person with trust that doesn't do the job they volunteered
for or accepted is useless. I find it hard to believe that out of all
of the DDs a suitable replacement (that would actually do the job)
couldn't be found.
> >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.
An actual fix is practical, just not with the current DAM (based on the
documented job performance and lack of responses). Useful
comminunication isn't _probably_ missing it's *definitely* missing.
Jamin W. Collins