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

Problem application

We have an applicant, who has just recently made it to an AM, who has been
accused of being untrustworthy by other members of the community.

I first heard about this person (and I'm not going to report his name just
yet, if at all), when the moderator of one of the Italian IRC channels
dropped me a warning e-mail. The charges are serious enough to warrent
expulsion if this person were already a developer, so it seems fairly
obvious that we don't wish to accept him. (The AM he was accidentally
assigned to, reported fear of even contacting this applicant because of
his reputation for abuse.)

James has made it very clear that he will never approve a "known
cracker" as a Debian developer, as is his duty.

I would prefer to have an established policy that is understood and
enforced by the Application Managers, so this doesn't have to become
"trouble" for the DAM.

Should we have a proceedure for this? Something where the charges are
presented to the admin team and we determine by vote whether to continue
with the application. Another alternative would be to present the evidence
to the FD and DAM and give them "authority" to decide. As another option,
the applicant should probably be offered the chance to delete his
application, rather than go through a "trial" that would be somewhat

For the present, I have re-assigned this appication to myself. Once we
decide how to proceed, I will go back through my mail and find the
original complaints, so I can present the evidence correctly.

Folks, it is exactly this kind of application that we are here to deflect,
so we want a clear cut proceedure for doing this. All ideas welcome.

Waiting is,

_-_-_-_-_-   Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide"  _-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (850) 656-9769
      Flexible Software              11000 McCrackin Road
      e-mail:  dwarf@polaris.net     Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- See www.linuxpress.com for more details  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Reply to: