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

Re: DAM approval wait time?

On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 03:35:58PM +0200, Oliver Kurth wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 09:15:23AM +0100, Stephen Quinney wrote:
> > Hi There,
> > 
> > I (stephen@jadevine.org.uk) was approved by my application manager
> > (opal) on 2002-09-02, as it is now 4 weeks since then I thought I
> > would ask if anyone can tell me when DAM approval and account creation
> > is likely to happen?
> I am waiting for 3.5 months now.

I believe I make the hit parade (the list in the weekly summary of 6+
month folks) next week. Maybe the week after.

> > I have been maintaining a number of packages in the archive, via my
> > advocate (ads), for quite some time now so i'm keen to get an account
> > and relieve him of this task.
> Same for me.

I'm mostly doing patches, for the moment, and maintaining the packages
in a non-Debian-server archive. For now.

> > I realise people are always very busy and approval must be carried out
> > thoroughly but I really want to get going properly with Debian
> > development. I guess just knowing when it is likely to happen would be
> > nicer than currently having no idea.
> I think nobody knows. Expect to wait for another few months.

The only comment I've gotton (from IRC) was that if you made it onto the
list, don't expect to *ever* be approved - just about nobody has.

> But more transparency would be really nice. The uncertainty sucks.
> And I would really like to know why it is not a first-in/first-out queue.
> A page which explains what has to be done by DAM to approve an application
> would be nice, so that people can understand why it takes so long. There
> must be a reason.

I can think of lots of reasons for it not to end up being FIFO, but very
few which plausibly result in some folks waiting 6 months while, at the
same time, others wait 1-2 days (some folks have been approved the week
they went to DAM stage, late in the week).

On the other hand, folks have been asking for more transparency for the
entirety of those six months, and have gotton a resounding knell of silence
in reply. Not even a "Hose off, no way in my lifetime".

It makes one wonder if the same thing happens in the NM process that has
been shown to happen in the FTP archives in cases which require human
intervention - that is, "silent pocket vetos". Simply never do anything
on the item, never talk about it, act as if it didn't exist. Nothing can
happen because there is no time limit, so things get stuck in limbo,
without even a "Welcome to Limbo, how low can you go" message.

Now, I'll grant, things don't move fast. And maybe six months isn't too
long to wait. And the DAM has many things to do, and shouldn't be expected
to do daily updates on every application at that stage, lest they have no
time to actually handle any of them. Maybe not even weekly. But I don't
think monthly is too much to ask, myself - once a month, tag everyone who
is at least a month old and say "Hey, here's the current status of your
application, here's what's holding it up, no idea when we'll be able to
resolve it but we're trying". Or whatever.

Right now, the DAM stage really is a black box. Or, in some cases, appears
to be a black hole. Being an optomist, I'd like to think that it's just
requiring careful and deliberated discussions by folks that are going on in
private, careful considering of the applicants. Being a realist, well... I
still eat sausage, and I know how it's made. Being a pessemist, I know how
effective silent pocket vetos can be when there is no procedure for appeal,
no veto override, and no time limit.
Joel Baker                           System Administrator - lightbearer.com
lucifer@lightbearer.com              http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/

Attachment: pgpSFovU9O1Hk.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: