Re: NM non-process
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:09:15PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> 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.
Based on the e-mails from many of these applicants (private and to the
list), the applicants are *not* being informed at all. As for whether
the applicant is the only one that should be informed, I disagree. If
there's a problem with the application it should be clearly noted on the
application status.
> > 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.
That's a pretty big *if*, and as I've indicated above the applicants
don't seem to be informed or contacted.
--
Jamin W. Collins
This is the typical unix way of doing things: you string together lots
of very specific tools to accomplish larger tasks. -- Vineet Kumar
Reply to: