On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 12:29:58PM -0700, Jamin W. Collins wrote: > In preparing my T&S e-mail for Maz Vozeler, I noticed that some of > the items in the template go into much more detail than the > questions on my own T&S e-mail during my processing. While I > understand that a good deal of what is asked and what isn't is > currently up to the AM to decide, would it not be better to > standardize a bit on what is and isn't asked? I somewhat ashamed to > say that I don't know if I could answer some of the questions on the > template without research. When I went through AM I was asked (and answered) exactly zero task and skills questions. I made packages, upgraded packages and fixed bugs. My work was vouched for by others and left to speak for itself. There is, IMHO, no set of T&S questions that can replace the value of this sort of feedback. With this feedback, I think long lists of questions are much less valuable or necessary. What I ask to my NMs is similar to what was demanded of me. I ask few, if any, questions but look for, and require, active engagement with the Debian and free software communities. If people are doing good work and have great technical reviews from sponsors and are creating clean, well documented packages, and demonstrate that they know when and how to read a manual, this should be enough. AFAIK, my NM's have all gotten accounts relatively quickly and I've received no complaints from the front-desk or DAM. I think the use of long lists of many dozens of sometimes obscure questions is counterproductive to Debian and exists, in many cases, as an unnecessary barrier to entry that keeps good people out or from applying in the first place. I heard a talk from a famous biologist last year who told a story something like this: Basically, a group of scientists bred mice so that they were really good at running through a maze. Many generations down the line the mice that made it through the rigorous breeding selection process *were* really good at running through the maze; but they were also partially deaf and partially blind. It turns out that when mice are just a lot less distractable, and as a consequence better at maze running, if they can't tell what is going on outside of your immediate field of vision. The mice were no smarter or better than other mice -- just worse in a way that was helpful in the narrow case of the test. I'm afraid the length and depth of the NM process (not the questions of course) is, in many cases, selecting for something other than competence, reliability, and knowledge of and adherence to our policy, philosophical, and quality standards. I half-jokingly believe our system, in some cases, privileges people who like researching and writing very long series of emails over people who enjoy going out and getting high quality programming work done in a consistent and reliable way. Imagine the flame wars of the future? :) This isn't a call for radical change and it's not meant as a major attack on the current system or any AM or set of templates. It is something that's been bothering me for a while though and it's something I'd think we'd all benefit from keeping in mind or, at the very least, a conversation we could all benefit from having. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill mako@debian.org http://mako.yukidoke.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature