On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:08:17AM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: > On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 06:44:25PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > On 2004-08-24 17:55:43 +0100 Brian Nelson <pyro@debian.org> wrote: > > > > >On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 10:09:02AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > >>Really? *all*? So, what is the value of having these questions in > > >>the NM > > >>process? > > >As I said, to ensure the applicants understand the issues involved. > > > > If *all* answers are accepted, even ones like Andrew Suffield's > > example, I don't see how it does that. > > That's what followup questions are for. Followup questions are pretty > much always necessary for 5a and 6, since most applicants won't give > detailed answers without prodding. Since we're talking in hypotheticals here, feel free to assume that after much prodding all you got was a wordier form of the same thing. It's not particularly unlikely; there is no position so stupid that you cannot find a person who holds it. > Other than that, it's up to the AM to judge "social" competence or > whatever, based on the applicant's participation on the mailing lists, > etc. Debian does not place much importance on social competence in > general (not just in NM) though, as you've probably noticed... Don't confuse competence with conformance. One is a measure of whether you agree with somebody; the other is a measure of whether you can work with them *despite* not agreeing with them. AMs tend to be lousy at this though, so it's one of those things which falls to the DAM (compare the number of applicants rejected by their AM for being a fuckwit to the number rejected by the DAM for being a fuckwit). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature