On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 05:00:34PM -0500, Duncan Findlay wrote: > The only disadvantage I see is that this seems to necessitate an > immediate action on an application. Occasionally applicants are left > for a while at the DAM stage for reasons like "they haven't done much > for Debian recently", etc. There may be legitimate reasons to put off > a decision, and that becomes difficult in this situation. I'd say that the group would then come to a consensus about putting the applicant on hold. It doesn't even seem like a disadvantage, just another possible end-point for the discussion -- "yes, no, or hang on a sec". I like Brian's plan better than the one I tentatively had (three AMs approve, no explicit disapprovals), because it includes any and all AMs who are interested in that part of the process (exactly as per debian-legal). And if nobody is interested (either in the process or in a particular application) then the process just devolves to what we have now -- FD and DAM work something out between them. But with the AM group doing most of the heavy lifting, I would presume that the truly problematic cases that nobody wants to touch can be isolated for manual DAM handling, and he won't have to spend as much time on the routine cases. This whole thing, though, pre-supposes that elmo is actually willing to participate in/approve of this process. If all the AMs get together and come up with a good consensus, but then elmo does exactly what he does now and reviews every case by hand with a very fine mesh, then we're gaining nothing. So what we really need is for elmo and tbm to come to this discussion (or have the discussion come to them) and discuss whether *they* feel it is a potentially winning move. - Matt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature