Re: Suggestion: Time limit for NM process
Pierre Habouzit <madcoder <at> debian.org> writes:
> the whole NM process is very frustrating as a candidate, because its
> slow, administrative, … we should do some efforts about that.
> Especially, the most negative point of NM is that it's not a FIFO, and
> that is MORE than painful for the applicant.
I found it more frustrating not having any idea when the process would be
finished. That's why I propose a time limit. I wouldn't care if others
finished before I did; I'd just like to know that I'd be done by a certain
date.
> 1) NM has to become a FIFO at each step: AM assigning, DAM
> verification, ... because this is *predictable*.
I have no objection to the idea of requiring FIFO processing. However,
there can't be a FIFO where AMs are concerned since they aren't a
single resource. I'm assuming that AMs will continue to be assigned
to particular applicants in the future.
> 4) thanks to 3, we could also involve sponsors and DD that work
> regulary with some given NM to his NM-mailbox. If a DD sponsors
> someone, given the time and involvment it represents (I sponsor 3
> persons atm, so I know what I'm speaking of), it does not looks
> that stupid to try to involve those in the application of their
> pupil.
This makes sense.
> 6) we should NEVER put any restrictions on time of any sorts. the
> point 1) sets the rules: either you are the one that spent the most
> time in that step, and you are the next to be processed, and thanks
> to the wonderful work of FD, you know that will happen.
>
> either you don't qualify, and you will be put on hold (with an
> explanation) or freezed (on your own request).
Or you are qualified but you wait an indefinitely long time for an AM to write
your report. But perhaps that is something that does not happen very often.
--
Thomas Hood
Reply to: