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

Re: AM Report for Week Ending 08 Dec 2002

On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 01:38:06PM +0100, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:

>> 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").

I guess my answer to this is, "count your blessings": although it's
possible for the NM page to give much more useful information than it
currently does, if the DAM doesn't feel inclined to be more verbose, I
don't think that pushing him is likely to be very productive.

>  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.

> > Although I suspect it was done entirely for selfish reasons ;)
> I don't quite follow you, care to explain?

Frankly, I suspect that the reason there are DAM comments on Eray's
account at all is because he made enough of a nuisance of himself that
James decided it was easier to give him an additional task to prove
himself than it would be to continue stonewalling him.  Unfortunately, it
seems the reverse is usually true, and I don't recommend following Eray's
example in the hopes of eliciting DAM feedback.

>> 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?

True enough.  I would call it an "educated guess".

>> 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."

I believe the current handling is preferable for two reasons.  First, he
has managed to pass AM muster once already, so there's no obvious reason
why he should be asked to go through the process again in a year -- or
why an AM should do the paperwork again.  Second, he has done so without
gaining DAM approval, and going through the AM process again still
doesn't meet the requirement currently put to him, so there's a
reasonable chance that the requirement would still stand a year from now.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpvsPZtpyXri.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: