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

Re: Excessive wait for DAM - something needs to be done

On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 03:01:35PM -0700, tony mancill wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Particularly since there has been a history of AMs who were less than
> > thorough. And some who are just wrongheaded[sic].
> <sarcasm>
> It makes you wonder how those AMs ever became DDs in the first place.
> </sarcasm>

I haven't checked, but I imagine some were grandfathered in, while
others were processed by similar AMs...

On a related note, we have no way to kick idiots out of the
project. Currently the "preferred" method is to publically flame them
until they resign in a sulk.

> Seriously, I'd appreciate some references to "less than thorough" and
> "wrongheaded" actions by AMs.  The process isn't going to get better
> without some open dialog about what it is that went wrong, and why the
> situation is the way it is today.

Now this gets tricky. We don't have a policy about confidentiality,
but I'm always fairly careful about what I discuss with who, and I
expect others are too. There's also a fair quantity of stuff in the
debian-private archives.

The current system of having an AM for each applicant, and then a
review by the DAM, is less than ideal - but I haven't been able to
think of anything that would work appreciably better, and it's not for
lack of trying.

An algorithmic measure of idiotship would be handy right about now.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
 `. `'                          | Imperial College,
   `-             -><-          | London, UK

Attachment: pgpw02BExKeeY.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: