Re: NM non-process
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:58:17AM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> Kalle Kivimaa <kalle.kivimaa@iki.fi> writes:
>
> > Roland Mas <lolando@debian.org> writes:
> > > with. The MIA problem is significant enough that NM might be the only
> > > way to tackle with it seriously. That means taking time to examine
> > > applications.
> >
> > BTW, has anybody done any research into what types of package
> > maintainers tend to go MIA? I would be especially interested in a
> > percentage of "old" style DD's, DD's who have gone through the NM
> > process, people going MIA while in the NM queue, and people going MIA
> > without ever even entering the NM queue. I'll try to do the statistics
> > myself if nobody has done it before.
>
> And how many NMs go MIA because they still stuck in the NM queue after
> years? Should we ask them? :)
I'm stuck since Dec. 2001.... FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!! SOMEONE HELP
ME!!! HELP ME SEE THE LIGHT AT THE END OF THE NM TUNNEL!! AGGGHHHH!!!
Oh well, this "plea" probably will go the way of the weekly RC bug
report - ignored.. :)
Since I started waiting for DAM, I saw a number of "DD"s get
approved by their AM and accounts created, only later to go MIA
Maybe it is better for them to go MIA in the NM queue in the first place?
- Adam
My definition of MIA for DD: Doesn't fix release critical bugs for his/her
package(s) within a week or two and doesn't respond to direct emails
about those bugs.
Reply to: