It's a pretty theory but it fails to account for reality. On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 12:18:08PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > On Tue, August 2, 2005 10:28, Andreas Barth wrote: > > And, BTW, is it not our problem to have too few AMs > > While I can agree that there are too few AMs, the whole process itself > seems pretty bureaucratic with room for improvement. Once you've completed > the AM stage, this still has to happen: > - AM checks application. > - Front Desk checks application. > - DAM checks application. > - DAM creates account. > > (Source: nm.debian.org) > > So, once the AM, who has done a thorough review of the candidate, then you > still need to pass three steps. Why? Once you've reached the AM-approved > stage, you've already got: > - a good review by an existing developer (advocate) Advocates are utterly useless. Anybody, absolutely *anybody*, no matter how much of a stupid MCSE-waving windows nutcase they might be, can get advocated, and people do routinely get advocated who have no hope of passing. The flaw in the system is simple and obvious: in order to get advocated, you must find precisely one developer in a thousand who thinks they should sent a brief fluffy mail about you. > - an assurance from a person very experienced with Debian and with > handling new developers AMs aren't much better, as a group. The FD checks their applications so as not to waste the DAM's time reviewing bogus ones, and the DAM checks them to filter out people who shouldn't get in. The reason why we need both these checks is most simply explained by pointing out that both of them reject a significant number of applicants - if we didn't have them, people would get in who shouldn't, or the DAM's already limited time would be wasted, slowing the process down more. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature