Re: (long reply) Re: NM saga (all of it - Joey, this means you)
Hi Daniel!
You wrote:
> I think Craig (Sanders) summed it up beautifully in his email where he said
> that the DAM was a servant-type job, not a master. How would you like it if
> a submarine captain just vanished on holiday without telling anyone because
> he couldn't be stuffed going on his next mission? The president? You get the
> picture. Joey, you've been given responsibility. You've been trusted. Your
> job as DAM is to take NM's, look at the AM's recommendations, and,
> eventually, assign accounts.
>
> See those last 2 words? ASSIGN. ACCOUNTS. This isn't happening! And, if you
> ARE on holiday, why did you not see fit to tell anyone? (I know I'm not on
> -private, but several of those who are have verified he hasn't said a word).
You evidently don't know what you're talking about.
1) James did post on -private about this
2) The DAM is the one who DECIDES whether you are accepted as a
developer or not. He is not just someone who creates accounts. As a
delegate of the project leader (e.g. Wichert), he may "may make
certain decisions which the Leader may not make directly, including
approving or expelling Developers or designating people as
Developers who do not maintain packages. " (Debian Constitution).
> Enter Debian, 2001. Democracy. (Yeah, my arse). NMs aren't allowed to speak
> a non-positive word against so-called "senior developers" because they're
> just little, unimportant NMs.
They _are_ allowed to speak, of course. They are not allowed to flame.
> Nor are they allowed emails. Or machine
> access.
There has been exactly one person who said this. Please don't
generalise.
--
Kind regards,
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bas Zoetekouw | Si l'on sait exactement ce |
|--------------------------------| que l'on va faire, a quoi |
| zoetekw@phys.uu.nl | bon le faire? |
| bas@A-Es2.uu.nl | Pablo Picasso |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Reply to: