Hi, Firstly, please do not respond to this with a message blaming DAM (James). I understand why NM process is slow and I do not think James is a person to be blamed. As the group of DD and NM applicant grows, DAM jobs become very demanding. But as discussed elsewhere (always...), the long DAM cue is not something Debian should be proud of. One of the fundamental problem is once NM passed DAM, he can upload and NMU any package which may conflict with others and break system. There is no smooth progression of privilege from unknown NM to full DD status. It is on/off. Maybe it is premature but we eventually need to think more gradual and distributed decision path from NM to DD with some automated function to assist DAM. This requires some LDAP support but here is my thought. (most likely implemented through mail gateway. I am assuming # of DD being about 1000) * NM apply and pass everything except DAM. He can get NM name which gives name@nm.debian.org like mail access and limited LDAP mail gateway access. name should be unique and usable even after becoming full DD. * Existing DD can send signed message to LDAP to rate NM with score +1,-1 . * DPL and DAM can submit between + 100, -500 (1/2 of DD#) score * Release managers and ftp-managers, ... can submit between +/- 10 score * After minimum of 3 months and 3 uploads and accumulating score of 10, NM can apply to get limited upload right of his packages without sponsor. (DAM can override this to refuse it.) * Once sponsors of each packages send signed mail to LDAP gateway, NM can upload those packages without sponsor. (Not for every packages) * Every year (from first non sponsored upload), NM gets 5 bonus points. * DD can keep update his position +1, -1 * Once 30 points are reached and DAM does not reject it within 3 month, he gets DD account. (By then DAM has clear idea who supported him and can ask some of those supported. This is more than current advocate since -1 provide potential issue review with reason) * DAM can expediate process or place status freze up to 2 years. Also DAM can reject candidate any time. This is just an idea of framework and I understand the details can be adjusted. Here DAM can put big minus to prevent problematic one to become DD. If NM is given access to his LDAP record, he knows how far is he to DD so his frustration will be minimized. My point here is not too much about details of the procedure but the idea is to build scalable and open infrastructure: * Distribute responsibility of applicant review process. * Automate applicant review process. * Give credit for long term contribution. * Provide limited upload right so no screaming for unresponsive sponsors. * Open about progress to NM candidate * Give more tool and reference to DAM * Do not reduce power of DAM * Trust is mostlu collective thing. Clear way to impliment minus score gives effective means to DAM. Osamu PS: The extension of this can apply for peer review of DDs.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature