Re: [fsmunoz@sdf.lonestar.org: This DAM aprovall thing is getting really weird]
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 01:52:56AM +0100, James Troup wrote:
> Glenn McGrath <bug1@optushome.com.au> writes:
>
> > How about a "Code of conduct" for the DAM.
>
> haha. not. How about you stop trolling?
>
> You know, every time people post idiocies like this, it simply
> detracts from the time I could be spending on processing applicants.
> That's not a threat or anything like that, just a fact. It's very
> disappointing to see posts like this but have my calls for help[1] (on
> the same list) ignored. :-(
Are you honestly attempting to claim that the minute or so it takes to write
emails like this, significantly detracts from your workload?
Me, I'm still waiting to know why I was left waiting for 2 months.
Seriously, to just write a short (even 3 sentence) explanation for the
people when they passed, say, a month ... that would *not* take long.
Unless, of course, you have so much work that you have that little time to
dedicate to Debian; in which case you probably should be better spending
your time, maybe step aside and hand it (DAM) to someone else trusted. IMHO.
(BTW, I have read the archives, and I dare say that there are more than a
couple of very trusted people who could do it).
What I want to know, is why do some people get through in 2 days (like some
I know), and why some are left hanging after more than 4 months (like some I
know). If, like you say, you are actively working on the 4-month people, how
come all these 2-day people get through, in 2 days?
-d, who does not see the logic in this argument at all, except for the "I
like him, but not him, so I'll just ignore him until he goes away" argument
--
Daniel Stone
(apparently not a) Linux Kernel Developer
daniel@kabuki.openfridge.net
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
G!>CS d s++:- a---- C++ ULS++++$>B P---- L+++>++++ E+(joe)>+++ W++ N->++ !o
K? w++(--) O---- M- V-- PS+++ PE- Y PGP>++ t--- 5-- X- R- tv-(!) b+++ DI+++
D+ G e->++ h!(+) r+(%) y? UF++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Reply to: