On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 11:19:51PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 04:36:47AM -0300, Blu Corater wrote: > >> I have considered many times to apply to become part of the proyect, but > >> nowdays I more often regret not having done it back then, mainly because > >> with the current states of things I find quite ridiculous to be evaluated > >> for more than three years to be accepted. > > The average, though, seems to be something less than 1 year. > I doubt that. It took four months until I got an AM assigned (since then the > list of applicants-to-be-assigned has risen more, by approx. 50%) and > extrapolating DAM approval rate from the recent three months it'll take > eight months until my application gets reviewed. So it's at least a year of > waiting alone, which is quite a disproportion to the thirteen days it took > me to pass ID check, P&P and T&S. For some reason, you seem to have taken my comment out of context, namely that I was referring to: > The average time from AM assignment to account creation Yes, the backlog on AM assignments is problematic, but it's also not exactly time spent enduring a grueling examination as was suggested. > > In Richard's mail, he wrote that the fact that people complain about the NM > > queue periodically is proof that there is a critical problem that needs > > resolving. This is a valid interpretation of the facts, but I don't believe > > it's a correct one. An equally valid interpretation is: once people start > > complaining, they don't know what to stop. Because of past problems with > > the queue, we find ourself entertaining complaints that it takes three years > > to become a DD when that simply isn't true. > As being directly affected I can tell you that it's not working very well. > If the AM- and DAM-queues were almost empty it would work, but the current > state is counter-productive and scaring away people from contributing. > It's easy to rant about Ubuntu, but they're not only successful because they're > backed by a gazillionaire who pays developers full-time, but also because > they're using a more open approach. If Ubuntu had chosen an NM-like procedure > they'd only have gotten external people to work in the recent months. I appreciate that the queues are a source of frustration for those stuck in them, but at the same time, I've heard plenty of grumbling from Ubuntu folks about the quality of "external help" that they've received. I also don't think that you can draw a direct analogy between processes of a mature organization, and those of a new organization like Ubuntu where the *first* priority is to grow mindshare and get people involved -- obviously we all want Debian to benefit from the time that volunteers are offering us, but that needs to be balanced against other considerations, too... -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature