[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian needs more buildds. It has offers. They aren't being accepted.

* Brian Nelson (pyro@debian.org) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> > No.  There's alot more to it than what the AM does, as is obvious when
> > you look at the AM templates and then consider what people tend to get
> > rejected by the DAM for.  The AMs do a pretty good job and handle alot
> > of the 'easier' questions for the AM report but the DAM has to look at
> > more than just the report for each applicant.
> If an AM is doing nothing more than using the NM templates and
> processing the applicant's answers, then that AM is not doing a good
> job.  An AM should do a thorough background check of the applicant,
> including mailing list activity, BTS usage (both bug response time and
> resolve time), package upload frequency, and relationships with
> developers (particularly sponsors).

"Nothing more"?  You make it sound like going through the templates and
looking at BTS usage, etc is trivial.  It's not.  I can tell you that I
certainly don't do a 'thorough background check' on my applicants as an
AM; neither does the DAM really, but I expect he certainly does more
than I do.  There's a division of work here to some extent, and in
general it seems to work pretty well from everything I've seen.  I'm
glad the DAM approval isn't just a rubber-stamp.

> There's no reason any of these checks should be the DAM's
> responsibility.  And people wonder why the NM queue tends to be
> processed so slowly...

Except that it's not actually processed all that slowly, and the DAM
is actually pretty good at being able to do such checks.  Additionally,
I *like* that the DAM does a review of everything and wouldn't have any
problem with him rejecting an applicant of mine and wouldn't feel that
it was against me in any way.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: