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

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

Jamin W. Collins wrote:
>On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 10:17:25PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> 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".

Yes, yes, and the alternative to starvation is adequate food supply.
Simply stating an idealistic state isn't helpful - how do we get there?

>> 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.

Common sense, mostly. The AM makes a recommendation to the DAM, and the
DAM takes that into account when deciding whether to create the account.
Yes, this should be documented.

>> 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.

Perhaps so. Who?

>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.

But he /does/ do the job - people who are trusted to be Debian
developers end up in that state and as yet, nobody who plainly shouldn't
have been in Debian seems to have got in, which is a good sign. Your
complaint is about it not happening in a timely fashion, which is a
separate issue entirely.

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

Reply to: