Re: Elitists v's popularists (was Re: [RFC] Making NM 'by recommendation')
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 12:10:22PM +1100, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> Well if you recognise this as a problem you should also recognise that
> debian developers can become inactive as well but still be considered a
> debian developer.
> This proposal to filter out new members only covers part of the problem,
> it doesnt attempt to filter out existing developers who wouldnt get in
> by todays standards.
The "echelon" scheme, which has been running for several months now,
is determining the last time a developer was "seen". The
DPL-appointed DAMs (Debian Account Managers) will be responsible for
dealing with inactive maintainers (of whom there are a number) in a
way which the project is still determining.
But that is a separate issue.
> For those reasons i see this proposal as a way to reduce the growth of
> membership not as a means of controling quality of membership.
I believe you are frustrated by the length of time the NM process is
taking you and the unresponsiveness of your AM. Instead of flaming on
a different subject, please write an email to
email@example.com asking to be assigned to a new AM.
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg
Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/