Re: AM reports
tony mancill <email@example.com> writes:
> Since when?
Since forever. I probably shouldn't admit but I will always process
reports from certain AMs first... you know why? Because they do
damn good reports. They do what use to be my job for me and they
do it well. They don't miss anything out, and they _always_ include
I can't force anyone to include logs, but I can tell you that you are
slowing down your applicants' progress by not doing so. If you don't
provide logs, I will be forced to go and do my own research on the
applicant and that takes time which I have precious too little off
> This wasn't a requirement for the first 4 developers whom I helped
> usher through the NM process.
See my previous mail.
> First of all, it presumes that the thing is going to take place via
> IRC or email. What if it's done face-to-face over a beer?
Well you have two choices... either meet the applicant on line anyway
(e.g. Fumitoshi does this for applicants he has already met), or just
tell me you met them in RL. I'll then have two choices, accept your
judgement (again, see previous mail), or talk to the applicant myself.
> In fact, it seems to me that the AM is not trusted to judge the
> applicant's responses to P&P questions if someone else needs to see
Err, no, that's simply not true. You're welcome to make your
judgement, in fact I strongly urge every AM to do so, but you are not
me. I have to make my judgement too. DAM is not here to simply
create accounts (if that was all it was, trust me, it would have been
fobbed off months ago). I _do_ accept some AMs judgement straight
off, but I _can't_ get to a position of accepting an AM's judgement
straight off unless I've seen how he's handle his applicants.
You want to talk about transparency? How transparent is "I talked to
<foo>, he passes P&P"? :-P
> So why should I waste my time trying to guess what the DAM wants to
> see for this section?
"guess"? WTF do you need to guess? I've told you.
> Anyway, for the applicant in question we conducted the P&P chat in
> German. Is that ok?
Err, no not really. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for logs
in English (simply because if it's not possible, then how the heck am
_I_ going to talk to the applicant)? If it really is impossible
(which I know it's not in this case), obviously we'd have to come to
some kind of arrangement.
> Sorry to take such a defensive tone, but the NM process is long and
> complicated enough without constantly changing rules (re: photo ID)
> and now diminishing the contribution of the AM to being a
> programming-free version a goddamn webform.
 purely off the top of my head, e.g. Craig, William, Fumitoshi, and
 Which as far as I'm concerned is the point of new new-maintainer,
and what makes it work. One, two or even three people simply
could never cope with this many applicants.
 For just one example, see d-devel@lists recently. Or for another,
the time spent on this list. :-/
 If some of these folks weren't so damn busy themselves, I'd be
tempted to violate my own rules and ask them to be DAMs... such is