[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 05:43:05PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 10:51:56PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> >
> > >If the DAM provided this level of attention to most any other
> > >_volunteer_ job, I suspect he would be politely thanked for his
> > >contribution and replaced by someone more able to perform the task.
> > >Leaving applicants in limbo with no update for years at a time is
> > >uncalled for and derelict.
> > 
> > Someone who enters Debian is in a position to upload a package that
> > could backdoor a very large number of machines. Attention to detail at
> > the DAM stage is *more* important than pretty much any other decision
> > making process in Debian. If the DAM fucks up even once, we lose
> > massively.
> There's that paranoia spectre again.  There is nothing that stops a
> current DD from doing the exact same thing.  There is also nothing to
> indicate that the above is DAM's reasoning for the extremely long
> delays.  If an applicant isn't clearly trustworthy within 60-90 days is
> another 9 months or more truly going to help?

Okay, this is just broken reasoning. Nobody said they're being kept
waiting until they're trustworthy, you just made that up. The reason
this thread is so messed up is because you keep injecting random
insanity like this. Please avoid suggesting things which are both:
 a) without evidence
 b) irrational

As a general rule, most things which fulfill both these criteria are

Far more likely is the possibility that they are people who should be
rejected, but the DAM _knows_ that trying to do so will engender a
useless debate with dozens of people chipping in with "I don't know
him or anything about him but I think he should be approved because

How could he know this? Well, that's what happened pretty much every
time so far. Much easier to ignore them until they go away; it has the
same effect in the end.

(That's mostly educated guesswork. I don't think it's particularly
accurate, but I'm not going to share my more detailed analysis
either. Presented here as proof of concept only)

> Just because people aren't beating down the door to volunteer doesn't
> mean there isn't someone that would accept the job and do a
> significantly better job then the current one.  Hell, the position isn't
> even open so I would hazard a guess that most people aren't volunteering
> for it becuase it's listed as filled.

As somebody with at least half an idea what the job involves, I can
guess with maybe a bit more accuracy here: most of the people who know
what the job entails don't want to do it. *I* don't, and I seriously
doubt many other people do either.

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

Attachment: pgpVfj1wP8krU.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: