Re: Debian needs more buildds. It has offers. They aren't being accepted.
David Weinehall <tao@debian.org> writes:
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 11:56:49PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> writes:
> > > Obviously, while I realise that people would prefer to get an answer out
> > > of the DAM directly (since he is responsible for accepting/rejecting), I
> > > think that the AM's should make it clear to the applicants that any and
> > > all inquiries wrt to their status should be made through their AM's.
> >
> > I did ask my AM and he had no idea why I was stuck. No reply from
> > James as to why. If its forbidden for NMs to talk to James that realy
> > should be stated.
>
> No, it isn't forbidden (and definitely should be either). I do however
> suggest that in the future we should as early on as possible in the
> NM-process tell the applicants to communicate through their AM rather
> than directly with the DAM. Of course, if this somehow becomes praxis,
> care must be taken to make sure that the AM and DAM communicates the
> reasons for delays.
>
> What we want:
>
> Say you're on-board a flight. You notice that the flight is taking
> longer than usual to arrive to the destination. Most of the other
> passengers have this destination as their final destination, but you have
> to catch another plane that is due within 30 minutes from the planned
> time of arrival. Would you walk into the cockpit to ask the pilot
> "Are we there yet?" or would you ask the flight attendant to do this for
> you? Asking will of course not get you there any faster (unless the
> pilot for some reason has fallen asleep, but since the plane changes
> course now and then, that can be dismissed), but knowing why there's a
> delay certainly gives a sense of security. Even knowing that you won't
> make your connection would be ok, then you could relax and consider
> backup plans.
>
> Now the situation in Debian:
>
> All passengers who have a connection to catch constantly knocks on the
> door to the cockpit asking "Are we there yet?" The pilot, concentrating
> on his flying, won't answer. The flight attendants don't have enough
> information, but aren't communicating with the pilot well enough to get
> enough information to be able to calm the passengers. Noone knows
> whether they'll make their connections. People start hurling their
> pre-packaged lunches at each-other. People without connections to make
> (like me) begin making stupid comments in attempt to calm things down,
> which probably doesn't help all that much.
An excelent and humorous analogy. Yes, I can very well imagine that
that is what is happening.
One small extension though. The flight attedants (AM) don't have the
key to the cockpit. They can bang on the door too but thats about
it. The head attendant (Frontdesk/Martin) has the key to the cockpit
though and can check if the pilot is asleep and the plane on
autopilot.
> > It took an intervention from Martin (frontdesk hat afaik) to get
> > things going again, Martin putting me under observation for 3 month so
> > he could make up his own mind and then recommend to the DAM.
> >
> > Now I got told by James that they (James and Martin) were concerned
> > about my "inactivity" leading up to the intervention.
>
> As I understand your situation (I can't say I've studied the details
> very carefully), you have been rejected by the DAM, right (since I'm
> subscribed to the debian-nm list, I probably have a mail about it
> somewhere...)
Yes. After Martin finished his 3 Month observation plus some time to
write the conclusion things didn't take long. I can't complain about
undue delays in the proceedings there, there were none given the
outcome. It took the DAM some time to go though over 7 years of
history to draw up his Rejection.
> Was it Martin who recommended that you'd be rejected, or was it James
> who decided on his own, since you seem so convinced that James is out to
> get you? I understand if you don't want to comment on this, I'm just
> curious.
"By September 2003, we were once again concerned about his inactivity
and Martin put him on a 3 month observation period - which he did pass
(the point though, is that it was necessary in the first place)."
>From my conversations with Martin I got the following understanding:
- Martin didn't see much activity from me leading up to that point.
We just didn't cross paths much.
- Martin wanted to make up his own mind about me.
- Instead of searching for what I had been doing or requesting a
report about what I had been doing or something similar he put me on
observation and I could make myself more visible to him the next 3
month.
Thats about the drift I got from it and I passed. I took over another
package, debmirror, which was in very bad shape and need of some work
around that time. Maybe that helped.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: