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

Re: Details for taking a break

Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de> writes:

> On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> >...
> > We are obviously doing very well at the overall process, as I now
> > have the time to worry about these details. There is currently a
> > defacto race going on between Craig (csmall) and Martin (tbm) to
> > see who can process the most applications. Martin got started
> > later than Craig, but is banging out the applicants at a pretty
> > good clip and may shortly take the lead. Several others are close
> > behind. If you want to speed up your processing of applications,
> > you might contact these "high producers" for some tips on how they
> > manage their applicants.
> >...
> I have a problem with "high producers" of new maintainers. I think it's
> important that we AMs know every applicant we have and I prefer knowing
> an applicant will be a good maintainer over processing as many maintainers
> as possible.

Oh, FFS, go away, you troll.  I've read every single report Martin,
Craig and any other AM has submitted, I've talked to Martin in depth
about how he processes his applicants and I can confidently say that
Martin and Craig are two of the most thorough AMs; period.

And "we AMs"?  How much AM work have you done, Adrian?  How much have
you been part of the solution?  I sure don't remember seeing any
reports from you.  I guess when I do get your reports, they will blow
me away with just how well you know your applicant and just how well
you know they will be a good[1] maintainer.  And of course, I'll
realise there's _nothing_ you could learn from people like Craig and
Martin, because with your vast experience and expertise in this area,
you did things so much better than them.  I sure hope so.


[1] For whatever versions of good you deem appropriate.  However,
given you seem so keen to randomly spread FUD about two of the people
who have been most helpful in getting this process back on it's feet,
I'm not sure I like that version of good.

Reply to: