Re: NM non-process
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:16:12PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >And neither does the fact that some have been there for years indicate
> >anything in particular.
>
> Here is where you're entirely and totally wrong. It indicates a
> breakdown in the communication process.
Communication with whom? I don't think that anyone besides the applicant
himself needs to be informed.
> If these people are being delayed for a reason, the reason needs to be
> written down publically in the appropriate place.
I disagree; if the applicant knows why they are being delayed, then the fact
that this information is not published on the website does not indicate that
the process is broken.
> If the people are in fact being rejected, they should be politely
> REJECTED: either being told to try again later when they have more time
> or skills, or to please not apply again at all (or for at least X
> years); depending on the situation. This may cause some flames
> from them, but will clear the air for everyone else.
I agree.
> If there's a > 3 month backlog just because DAM is too busy, the DPL
> needs to promptly add more people to DAM, to work in parallel.
> Including the DPL himself if necessary. It sounds like this is not
> actually the case, oddly enough.
DAM-ness does not seem to parallelize well; it is not a matter of simple
manual labor.
--
- mdz
Reply to: