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