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). > > 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. While the assertion that some make it in a few days is hearsay, the assertion that at least one person has been waiting since March is easy to verify - just look at my application in the NM database; it's under joel@lightbearer.com. Your statement does nothing to disprove the hearsay, either, however. I never said *nobody* was getting approved. Only that the process transparency appears to be roughly that of mud, and as such, we have no way to *tell* any of the following: 1) Some people are/are not being denied by 'silent pocket veto'. 2) Some people are/are not getting through the queue months ahead of others, and who these people are, if this is happening. 3) Why any particular person has not made it through the queue. 4) Why, months after Woody is out, the DAM still hasn't approved more than a handful of people. Woody is out; Debconf is long over. Knowing that these were causing issues was good, but that's the sum total of information coming out of the process right now, other than a raw number (with a rather low average) of approvals-per-week. and 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. Point 5 would be nice to fix, but involves the efforts of the folks coding the report. Consider it a wishlist feature request. Points 1-4... well, the person or people currently responsible for them would have to speak up, first. Short of that, I don't think anything but a GR will fix it (and I honestly doubt that path, even if it succeeded, would actually FIX it; I suspect it would just evolve into the current group resigning the post, though who knows). -- *************************************************************************** Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com lucifer@lightbearer.com http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
Attachment:
pgp2jitw6Gi6m.pgp
Description: PGP signature