On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 06:31:10PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: [snip] > And not to name names, but I don't think relaxing the review process is > the right solution because even in the current system I've seen some > developers come out of the NM queue with still *way* too much learning > ahead of them to justify trusting them to make independent decisions as > developers. Just IMHO. Streamlining is good, but not if there's a net > drop in Debian's quality as a result. [snip] Then there is a problem with the requirements given to AMs (not strict enough), or there's a problem with AM's being too lenient in the T&S checks. It should not be up to the DAM to fix flaws in earlier stages of the process, as it appears to be the case now. But at any rate, I think the problem with the NM queue is not the DAMs having too much work, too little time; the problem is that there is no *feedback* as to why a particular NM is being given the silent treatment at the DAM stage. I don't think anyone would have a problem with the current NM process if they were told up front, "you're being rejected/put on hold because of A, B, C, ...". This is the point I keep trying to bring up, and keep getting no answer to. While I fully respect the DAM's decision to accept/reject applicants using the constitutional powers granted to him, I do *not* agree that he can arbitrarily ignore otherwise-qualified applicants without any explanation whatsoever. And if this is because of the DAM's workload, then adding more DAMs seems to be the logical solution. T -- BREAKFAST.COM halted...Cereal Port Not Responding. --YHL
Attachment:
pgpKodHNadvms.pgp
Description: PGP signature