Re: Problem application
On Wed, 4 Oct 2000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 09:16:15AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > But I'm the one with the applicant, not the DAM. If I want the DAM to deal
> > with it, I must process the application. I'm not willing to do that with
> > this applicant.
> >
> > There are several questions here that need discussion.
> >
> > 1. Should the AM keep the name of the applicant confidential?
>
> In cases like this, I believe so. We can otherwise be accused of
> publishing defametory material about people; remember that this list
> is archived.
Well, in this case, the data that I could present is available "on the
web", so at the very most we could be accused of repeating gossip.
>
> > 2. Should the AM present the "evidence" to the group, or simply decide on
> > his own?
> >
> > 3. If the AM is to make this decission on their own, what is the level of
> > "slime" required to reject the applicant?
> >
> > I'm not willing to contact this applicant until I know how do deal with
> > him.
> >
> > I suggest that the first contact be one that tells the applicant that
> > there are "charges" against them, allowing them to defend themselves from
> > individuals who are just trying to make trouble for them.
> >
> > I'm not expecting us to seek out such information, but when it comes our
> > way, we _must_ act on that knowledge and not simply pawn the problem off
> > on the DAM.
>
> I think that we must remember that our task is essentially to do the
> initial fact-finding/data-gathering/question-asking on behalf of the
> DAMs. While our opinions are respected by the DAMs, it is important
> to remember that *they* are the delegates of the DPL, not us. When it
> comes to something unusual like this, I think the only sensible thing
> to do is to speak with the DAMs before speaking with the applicant,
> and only proceeding to communicate with the applicant after the DAMs
> have given their views. I really don't see it as "pawning the problem
> off"; after all, this is a rare occurrence (the first time in how many
> applicants?), and no matter what we decide, the DAMs have the ultimate
> say. So in such a case, we may as well ask their opinion before we
> waste our time interviewing the applicant. We should keep our efforts
> focussed on our primary goal: getting the remaining hundred applicants
> though the process.
In this case, I have already discussed the issue with the DAM. He has made
it clear that he will NOT accept such an applicant.
Yes, our "duty" is fact gathering, usually to assess the capabilities and
understanding of the applicant. We have been very careful to not get into
the KGB practice of "security" investigations, and I'm not suggesting that
we should. However, once information of this nature is provided I see no
other choice but to act on that information, just like we would if the
applicant said they didn't agree with The Social Contract or the DFSG.
I see no other course than to act on such information when it is presented
to us from the outside community. On the other hand, I don't see it as
being proper to simply accept that outside information without letting the
applicant defend himself, so I guess I'm looking for a proceedure to allow
that defense to occur. (I don't see how such information can be presented
without releasing the applicants name, but giving the applicant the choice
of either defending themselves or removing themselves from the application
process will allow them to retain their privacy)
I would prefer that the evidence be presented to the group, possibly with
some kind of voting proceedure, so that no one AM must shoulder the
responsibility of the decission to exclude the applicant.
While we are not strictly "deligates of the DPL" we do enjoy the full
support of the DAM in this reguard. We may still need to present our
"findings" to him for final approval, but I don't want him to have to
shoulder the responsibility for the decission on _his_ own either. This is
a problem that is better shared.
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 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Reply to: