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

Re: buildd administration

On Sat, 2005-12-10 at 02:40 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Thijs Kinkhorst <kink@squirrelmail.org> wrote:
> > I'm not really convinced that such an approach would have a significant
> > effect as long as you're not measuring existing DD's to the same
> > standards. Which, as far as I can see, does not happen.
> A procedure is in place for developers to be ejected from the project.
> If you feel that anyone is behaving in a way that would not have allowed
> them to get through NM, then please do invoke it.

I'm sorry, but following that procedure, I can't. But that's fine, since
I didn't want to; I just wanted to point out that I'm pretty sure that
the people advocating complaining about NM-candidates have hardly, if
ever, invoked this procedure or any other official mechanism for
adjusting the attitudes of existing developers, and that they might want
to shift their attention.

There's too much emphasis on the NM-process, and nearly no emphasis on
evaluation of your performance after you've passed it. I once spoke with
a maintainer that didn't want to orphan a package he couldn't take good
care of as long as he was in NM, but was willing to orphan it just after
he passed the DAM stage (and did). Complaining about NM-candidates but
no post-graduation evaluation just encourages this kind of behaviour.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: