[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?  It would be better (and
> safer according to your argument) to refuse the application and let them
> reapply later, or even state that as a reason for having the applicant
> wait a longer period.  Instead we simply leave the applicant in limbo
> without any update.

When the first 60-90 days represent a state of insufficient information,
it's quite possible that more time would help the DAM to make a
decision.  I also don't see where anything Matthew said can be construed
as making it *safer* to reject applicants who aren't known to be ready,
instead of leaving them in the queue.

If you really feel that being rejected is preferable, from the
applicant's POV, over being left in limbo, why have you not withdrawn
your application?  That seems to be the logical result of your line of
argumentation.  Since you have not withdrawn your application, I would
conclude that you don't really feel being rejected is the best way to
achieve your goal of contributing to Debian.

If you were rejected today with an explanation -- "insufficient
information to tell if you're trustworthy", "technical skills need
improving", "not focused on Debian's core challenges", "flames too much
on debian-devel"[1], or anything else that basically reduces to "needs
to improve himself as an applicant before being accepted" -- would you
act on this feedback and try again?  If so, what prevents you from
trying to improve yourself as an applicant today based on what you know
about Debian's deficiencies?  If not, what difference does it make from
Debian's POV whether applicants are rejected or allowed to stall?

I do understand that faster processing of acceptable applicants would be
potentially beneficial; but I don't follow how faster rejection of
unsuitable applicants would make much of a difference.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

[1] Yes, yes, these last two are mutually contradictory...

Attachment: pgpUxlHMek9bn.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: