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

rejections and reprocessing etc.



We have a couple of rejections coming up; here's what I'm proposing to
do.  There will be two types of rejection: hard and soft rejections.

Soft rejections is my way of saying ``Do I really have to?''; i.e. I'm
not happy with a candidate, but I'm not unhappy enough to resort to a
hard rejection.  A soft rejected applicant will be put on hold in the
DB and this list will be notified.  I'll then leave it up to you guys
to decide what to do.  If the applicant gets enough "yes"
votes/approvals/whatever, I'll consider my initial decision overturned
and accept him under protest.  I'm not dreadfully fussed what the
magic number of approvals is and who can make them, so I welcome
suggestions on that detail.

A hard rejected applicant is rejected; no discussion.  I consider this
part of my delegated powers under the constitution and (FWIW) the new
DPL agrees.  You can overturn this decision (no power in Debian is
absolute) by way of a GR, but that's about it.  Note neither of these
rejection methods are intended to be common place, hard rejections
especially.  If I hard reject someone I genuinely believe that I can
not in good faith trust them to be a Debian developer.

Reapplying from a soft rejection will require an 'ok' from the NM
committee after an as-of-yet undetermined time span.  Details on the
length of the time span and how an 'ok' is generated are undecided and
again suggestions/comments welcome.

Reapplying from a hard rejection will require an 'ok' from DAM (and NM
committee too, if you want; I'm not fussed, but the DAM part is
non-optional).  The time span for hard rejections will be determined on
a case by case basis.

For the benefit of the applicant more than anything else, I don't
intend to post details publicly of either form of rejection.  I'm
unlikely to get involved in a public dispute, regardless, but the only
way it'll happen at all is if the applicant initiates it.


Some of you may have noticed your applicants being reprocessed from
time to time by Martin.  This is at my request and is my ``fault'' (as
it were), so if you want to flame someone for it, flame me.  In any
event, what I do is basically this: if the applicant's report was sent
in recently (say < 1 month ago) and I have a problem (missing
information/whatever), I well generally contact the AM or applicant.
However, if the applicant has been waiting a long time (> 1 month), I
will generally ask Martin to reprocess the applicant for the relevant
steps.  This is not meant as insult to the AM in question; it comes
down to two things: a) I don't feel comfortable having ``ignored''
(read: not had time to process) the AM's report for so long and then
nitpicking several months later, b) Martin is, for better or worst,
the AM I am most comfortable with; if I ask him to reprocess someone,
I know I will only have to do it once and there will not be any
unnecessary back and forth, thus reducing the time the applicant has
to wait (since he's already been waiting too long).  I also find
another AM's view helpful in some situations. *shrug*. Anyway, short
version: please don't take offence; none is meant.


Reply to: