[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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:
> >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.

As an AM, I do the best I can to check these things (although I don't
think everybody else does). Part of the role of the AM (as I see it)
is to prevent any people from being rejected by the DAM by not letting
them get that far in the first place - thereby increasing the amount
of time the DAM can spend on processing applicants who should be
accepted.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: pgpSiOlXRbger.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: