Re: AM Report for Week Ending 08 Dec 2002
On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 02:17:09PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> But in Eray's case, the reasons ARE obvious to outside observers;
You mean to people who participate in certain fora. What I meant was
that _ideally_ these reasons should be stated plainly and there should
be no need to go fishing for them in mailing list archives or
> nm.debian.org also clearly states what is being required of him
> before he can become a developer.
Yes, it states the requirement, but it doesn't mention the reason for
that requirement (e.g. "bad team-work skills").
> DAM approval is not necessarily a rubber stamp; in the end, the DAM
> is personally responsible for creating Debian accounts, and I'm glad
> that he DOES review the applications to make an independent decision
Sure, noone is stating the contrary. That's one of his tasks: make
sure that everything adds up.
> > The way I read that is that the DAM doesn't think it's appropiate
> > to approve the application, but doesn't have any particular reason
> > to reject it and has asked five developers to pitch in and say
> > "yes, I think it should be approved". That's fine for two months.
> > But two years?
> I think being unable to work together with other developers well
> enough to get the backing of even five out of a THOUSAND is itself a
> substantial reason not to approve an application.
Sure. Either Eray hasn't actively asked for this support or he's found
none. Either way, move forward. From my POV having a person sit in
there for two years is a bad precedent. This says the process is not
bounded in any practical way.
> Have you told the DAM that YOU think he should be a DD? If not, why
No, I haven't because I don't think he should be a developer. What's
> Although I suspect it was done entirely for selfish reasons ;)
I don't quite follow you, care to explain?
> You might disagree with the DAM's reasoning for holding up the
> application (I certainly don't), but I don't see why you would object
> to the comment on the NM page.
I don't disagree with the reasoning because I don't know the reasoning
in the first place. What you seem to think the reasoning is, is only
your own best guess, isn't it?
> Or were you suggesting that Eray's application should simply be
> rejected, and the file closed?
Yes, that's what I'm saying. "Should you want to apply again, please
do so in a year. Thank you."