Re: DAM approval wait time?
Joel Baker <lucifer@lightbearer.com> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 10:17:08AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > * Joel Baker <lucifer@lightbearer.com> [2002-09-30 16:56]:
> > > I believe I make the hit parade (the list in the weekly summary of 6+
> > > month folks) next week. Maybe the week after.
> >
> > I would doubt that for that list is for applicants that are on HOLD,
> > not waiting for a special task to happen.
>
> Ah. So, if this is true... then the report doesn't even *show* some
> large number of people who have been stuck in the queue for 6+ months
> waiting on the DAM? I wonder how many are in this situation, then...
>
> (Though I then must wonder what qualifies as 'on hold', as well, that
> the report is measuring).
Being 'on hold' usually means some problem with the application like
the applicant indicating that he will not have time for the next
months, applicant not responding to email etc.
> > > 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.
> >
> > Well, if you scan the weekly reports you know that that's not right.
> > It doesn't happen in a floating manner but in rushes. The differences
> > between those are varying, though.
>
> No, I do *not* know that it isn't right. I know that since spring, therre
> have been exactly 2 weeks in which anyone made it through the queue. One
> of them had 11, one had 8. Every other week had 0. I know that there is no
> clear way to know *who* made it through, just from the reports, as they
> don't list the people who passed out of the queue.
Yes, there is. Just have a look at http://nm.debian.org/nmlist.php,
under "New Maintainers" you find the new maintainers, ordered by date
of account creation, so the people on top of the list are the most
recent maintainers. (I have not seen it documented but it seems to be
an experimental fact.) By the way, the list of applicants also seems
to be ordered by date of AM assignment or such. So the facts about who
is in the queue how long and who got approved and such are
transparent. On the other hand, I agree that the reasons why some
people apparently have to wait till hell freezes over are murky. I
would also appreciate some more transparency there, e.g. does the DAM
have to double-check all the AM approvals or should he trust them,
what sort of help can other developers offer to the DAM, other than
volunteering as AM (and some of the problems here seem to be after the
AM approval)? Of course approving new Debian developers is a sensitive
issue, but asking for more transparency of the whole process and
reasons for the long delays seems reasonable to me.
> 5) Apparently, the Weekly Report doesn't track what I'd considered to be
> a fairly important number - people still at any given stage for more
> then <X> period if time, for values of <X> that are reasonably long for
> that period. Rather, this is tracked for some periods (time without an
> advocate, etc) - but not for others.
You can write a script which fetches all the individual reports from
the list on nm.debian.org and generates this kind of statistics, but
what would it gain you? I guess most people know that the situation is
bad and one maintainer (Yotam Rubin) just orphaned all his packages
because he was frustrated that the NM process was taking too long and
that he never got any response to his questions. I am one of the lucky
people who became Debian maintainers recently, but I have no idea why
fate chose me and not other people waiting for a longer time.
Lukas
Reply to: