[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.

* David Weinehall (tao@debian.org) wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 12:08:25AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > 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).
> > 
> > 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...
> My point exactly.  I did dabble a little with AM work (however I'm
> ashamed to say I became inactive, to the detriment of the two NM's I
> processed, who had to wait far longer than necessary), and I tried to
> make sure I knew more about the applicants than what the
> templates told me to ask for.  For instance I checked out mailing list
> activity and BTS usage (I wasn't as thorough as you suggest, so no
> checking of response and resolve time.)

I do check response and resolve times and read through all of the BTS
logs for all of my applicants.  That's pretty much orthogonal to a
background check though, which I admit I don't really do beyond what I
might pick up in BTS reports or if I happened to see something involving
my NM elsewhere.  I don't recall a detailed background check being part
of what's expected of me though as an AM.  I suppose I'll go double
check and talk with tbm about it, but honestly I expect that even if I
do such a check the DAM will end up duplicating alot of that (with good
reason, imv).

There are also things which the DAM hears about that AMs don't, and I
doubt that'll change because of where they come from..

> I also tried to ask questions that do not really have any right or
> wrong answer, just to try to get a feeling of how well they
> communicated.  However, since I didn't fulfill my duties as an AM,
> I'm probably no good raw model for others...

Probably not.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: