RE: Problem application
Dale,
Apologies for not responding sooner. You have brought up an
important point about our 'process'. I dont believe that
we are just a group that approves applications, but each
one of us can 'reject' an application. I think the real issue
here is how to formally reject an applicant, or at least how
to reject ones application at this point in time, and perhaps
allow them to apply again at a later date.
At the moment, the Front Desk, AM, or DAM can reject an applicant
for reason or reasons "x", we simply have not discussed,or qualified
what reason "x" is acceptable to the group/organization, and
further, what is the recourse, or appeal, or waiting time, before
and applicant can then re-apply.
I am avoiding the specific situation you mentioned, as I do not
know any of the details. It seems reasonable that if any one
of the members of the New Maintainer process would reject an
applicant with cause, that the group would accept the reasons,
or start a 'spirited' debate...
It seems that the subject was brought up in the past, and if I
remember correctly, there was talk of requiring a 'rejected' applicant
to wait 6 months before applying again. Perhaps we simply did
not codify that discussion, by putting it on the web pages.
...just my thoughts....
Jim Westveer
On 28-Sep-2000 Dale Scheetz wrote:
> 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
> public.
>
> 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,
>
> Dwarf
> --
> _-_-_-_-_- 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 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-newmaint-admin-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
--
Jim Westveer <jwest@lcs.issaquah.wa.us>
------------------------------------------------------------
"Bother," said Pooh as he struggled with sendmail.cf.
"It never does quite what I want."
"I wish Christopher Robin were here.".
------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: jwest@lcs.issaquah.wa.us jwest@debian.org
work : 425-591-3002 Date: 02-Oct-2000
FAX: 425-392-0141 Time: 09:13:26
pgp-key 0x36129171 gpg-key 0x9823336C
------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: