[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: fresh blood gets congested: long way to become DD

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

Reply to: