On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 08:25:00AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > The only stall could be if nobody looks at pending applications, but I think > there are enough AMs to handle that. The converse - shoddy AMs OKing other > shoddy AMs work - should be handled by removing the shoddy AMs from the > system (IMHO). These two statements are mutually problematic. If you want to use the whole pool of AMs for this, then you stand a chance (I don't know how large) of getting two such shoddy AMs. If you use just a small group, you'll have the same problems as the DAM, ftp-master, and maybe even tech-ctte. The problem of identifying which AMs are and are not up to the job is approximately as difficult and flamewar-inducing as the problem of processing applicants in the first place; this process will repeat to the Nth degree. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing, `. `' | Imperial College, `- -><- | London, UK
Attachment:
pgpgKHqXNHszh.pgp
Description: PGP signature