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

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
 > not?

 No, I haven't because I don't think he should be a developer.  What's
 your point?

 > 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."


Reply to: