Re: NM status: separate DAM approval and account creation?
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 10:32:20PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 10246 March 1977, Brian Nelson wrote:
>
> > The front desk already reviews every report for completeness and
> > correctness when they are submitted. No report should be getting to the
> > DAM that isn't ready for approval.
>
> So why then are some on Hold?
Because stuff has changed? I think the FD is a lot more thorough now
than they used to be.
> Why is there the possibility for a DAM to reject, for FrontDesk not?
> (They can send back to AM, but not reject an NM if AM thinks its ready).
OK, but we can still put them on hold forever. :)
> > Joerg, in his current position, is completely redundant
>
> Oh thanks. So I should go?
Nah, stick around for a bit. We may find a use for you yet. ;) I'd
really like to see you get full DAM powers.
Redundancy isn't a bad thing anyway. The more people that read AM
reports the better, IMO.
> > and is no different from a front desk member. I can only assume that
> > he will get full account creation rights in the near future, once he's become
> > comfortable with the role. Otherwise, I don't see any reason as to why
> > he's been promoted to "DAM" if he has no power to manage accounts.
>
> Maybe to take away some load from James? Like - reading the whole
> stuff, looking what he did/does and actually deciding "Yes, I think he
> would give a good DD"? And take the responsibility if you make crap with it.
"Responsibility" is pretty meaningless in Debian. If a developer does
something that warrants getting kicked out of the project, I highly
doubt any repercussions would be felt by the DAM who approved him or
her.
If anything, the advocate and AM should be at least as "responsible" as
the DAM.
> FrontDesk actually wasnt so much. FrontDesk was managing AM assignments
> and stuff. It was extended from time to time, to what it is actually,
> but you are still somewhere in the middle.
> Its good what you do (and thanks for that) - ensuring that Reports are
> really complete, sometimes asking extra question if stuff is missing -
> but its still different from what I do. (Except that we both read the
> text. :) ).
I don't know what you or the other FD members do. However, for any
report I write as an AM or read as a FD member, I try to put myself if
the DAM's shoes and say to myself, "If I were DAM, would I approve this
applicant?" Providing a definitive "yes" to that answer does require a
lot more than just checking if the applicants answered the template
questions well. In addition to the standard checks included in reports,
usually this involves:
* Gathering additional statements from developers (aside from the
advocate) that vouch for the applicant's skills and trustworthiness.
(This is more the AM's responsibility than FD's)
* Checking all bug reports (including archived) both submitted by the
applicant and submitted against the applicant's packages, and ensuring
these were handled in a satisfactory way.
* Checking the applicant's lists.debian.org activity, especially how he
or she interacts with other developers.
* Checking the applicant's activity on the general Internet, though I
think this is of questionable usefulness.
Ideally, the AM should do all of these and include them in the report,
so then the FD only has to verify the results.
If there is anything you do that is not included above, please tell me.
There's no reason the DAM should have to do any checks not already done
by the AM.
--
Society is never going to make any progress until we all learn to
pretend to like each other.
Reply to: