Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 12:36:35PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> While I have my gripes with the DAM process, I don't blame the holder(s)
> of that position for some developers in the past having proven
> untrustworthy. The DAM should not be embarrassed by having let in
> someone who also fooled everyone else. The DAMs' job is to manage
> accounts, not gaze into people's souls.
He, and everyone else, should however raise his (their) voice if they
see an applicant not fitting into Debian or they think that someone his
untrustworthy.
*If* there is doubt, those doubts should be communicated to atleast the
AM, so he can take action; be it that they ask the community how they
feel, be it that they communicate the reasons further to the applicant,
be it another action which i currently do not think of.
Its no solution if the DAM doesnt communicate at all or only when he
gets asked. IMHO atleast the communication between DAM and AMs should be
working good, and from atleast one voice i heard (i dont remember if it
was in the threads or on IRC) this is not the case.
I do not feel its even required to always post exact reasons, some
things shouldnt be made too public; instead i feel that there should
be communicated... well, lets call it heartbeats: "Hey, i did not forget
you". Again, this mustnt be necessarily communicated directly to the
applicant, but atleast to the AM, who can further communicate it (if
necessary, in complete different detail-levels) to the applicant.
--
| Rico -mc- Gloeckner | mv ~/.signature `finger mc@ukeer.de` |
| Encrypted Mails preferred: 1024D/61F05B8C |
| 3D67 D42F 2D50 4B68 1D62 E999 EFCB CDFF 61F0 5B8C |
Reply to: