Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote on 07/01/2006 16:07: > Sven Mueller <sven@incase.de> writes: > >>I know this is an old thread, but as far as I can tell, it's still an >>issue. (At least I've been waiting for FD approval for over two months now.) > > Well, it seems like I'm the only FD member reading AM reports at the > moment. As my free time is limited, As well as the free time of all (or most) of us. I was merely stating a fact, it wasn't intended to be whining or anything. I don't mind waiting another month if noone from the FD team has the time before that. (But I would mind if someone else is fasttracked at this point without sufficient, public justification, because I would percive it as undue preference.) >>I don't think this would work. However, it would be nice if AMs could >>choose to pass on handling of an applicant to some other possible AM. > > > They can do that, but the overhead of such a switch is relatively big I know it is. It would be really nice if some way could be worked out to make this overhead smaller so that AMs who have really limited time for a while can easily pass on handling to another AM who has more time available. However, working something out to make this easier is in itself certainly not an easy task. >>IMHO, this could be improved if the DAM (or even FD) wouldn't need to >>review the complete application, but could simply check how many AMs >>reviewed an application and signed it. > > Right, because AMs have tons of free time and just WAIT for us to throw > more work at them. I'm sure they don't have 'tons of free time'. But I assumed that it would be easier to find more AMs because they don't necessarily need to know all the stuff FD (or even DAM) need to know and it would thus be easier to find additional AMs. So if a additional AM was available but no additional FD member, it would be nice to offload some work from FD to (the new) AM. > Sorry, I understand your irritation because it looks > like your process isn't moving forward, I knew how the NM process worked before applying, so I'm not irritated regarding my own application, but that doesn't mean that I won't try to help improving the process. > but OTOH, you have to understand > that there's no simple solution for the existing problems. No offense intended, but if everyone keeps saying so, even hard solutions won't be found. Apart from that: There _is_ a simple solution to the existing problem of the NM process being slow: Add more people to the AM/FD/DAM teams. It might not be too easy to find these people, but anyhow, the principle is simple enough. > Debian generally suffers under the fact that people have no fixed amount > of free time and unexpected events often suck up every free minute. This > means that work shouldn't be distributed in big chunks, but in smaller > units. I know that all too well. But to lessen the effects of such events, the only solution possible is to add more people to the job so that the likeliness of these timeconsuming events blocking an important task (yes, IMHO the processing of NM applications is an important task for Debian though there might be more important ones inside and outside of Debian). > On the other hand, things like new maintainer applications should be > handled in a way that ensures that one (or more) person has a complete > picture of someone's work, as the implications of a membership (access > to project machines, full upload rights to unstable, voting rights) lead > to severe security implications. True, one (or more) person(s) should have the full picture, but it seems that currently three people (the AM involved, FD and DAM) know the whole picture before the account would be created. And is _that_ really necessary? regards, Sven.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature