[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 10:03:02AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:

 > 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.


 > 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.

 You mean it's easier to give him a task that he can't possibly
 accomplish (let's be real here, it's extremely unlikely that these five
 people ever show up) than to tell him upfront that he's not qualified
 for the job?  I mean, the alternative is even _more_ childish ("I don't
 like you, go away").

 > >  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.

 Well, the NM process has changed since Eray first summited his
 application.  Now you need an advocate in order to even start the
 process.  I hope noone in the project takes advocating lightly.  If
 Eray ever reapplies, his advocate is surely going to think it twice
 before signing that message.

 And a year is a lot of time.  Maybe the NM process turns out a
 different result.

 > 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.

 You are supposing the DAM is going to make this requirement again.
 Maybe he won't.  Maybe he will.

 My problem with the whole thing is that I really don't see the point of
 keeping people in this limbo just for the fun of it.


Reply to: