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

Re: Queue processing

* Troy Heber <troy.heber@hp.com> [2005-11-14 18:30]:

> I understand why there are differences in AM assignment and the FD
> queue. However, the process is pretty broken if someone can be waiting
> in the DAM queue, this mean having completed everything ask of them
> already, another NM *applies* for NM and still manages pass through
> first. Let me reiterate he applied for NM after I was sitting in the
> DAM queue! This is so disproportional that it does not make sense.
Well without long thinking one example comes to my mind: size of the
mbox containing conversation. Another one is that if the DAM has gone
through ones AM report but is not 100% shure at first sight and wants to
reread the report again later. Again I don't know if this applies to
your case and I'm shure if you sit down and think a bit you'll find out
that there are more than those 2 reasons given here. 

Finally it's the DAM who has the burden to decide if somebody is
qualified and fits into the project. It's not a simple check if all AM
questions have been answered in a satisfying way. 

And while I'm at it another reason comes to my mind: readability. The
majority of applicants is, like me, non native English speaking and thus
it might be more difficult to understand everything in an AM report.

Anyways I hope I could explain why the DAM queue is not FIFO.

yours Martin
<martin@wuertele.net> ----------------------------- NO HTML MAILS PLEASE
* Michael Motal (eattthatspammer@sco.com)
> Ich sehe, Sie stehen neben einem zerstörten Drucker und einer Leiche.
> Irgendeine Erklärung?
"Der Drucker war offensichtlich minderwertig.
Ein gutes Produkt übersteht sowas klaglos."
		-- Andreas Krey, de.alt.sysadmin.recovery

Reply to: