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

Re: Reforming the NM process



On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 05:38:17PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@debian.org> writes:
> > 1.2.7 Knowledge-area assessment
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Determine a set of "required knowledge" modules, and ensure that the
> > applicant has been assessed satisfactorily on all of them.  This assists in
> > assessing different sorts of applicants -- you can customise the "required
> > modules" for a documentation person as opposed to a package maintainer,
> > without needing to totally gut the whole system.
> 
> That's something which AMs can decide (and I do not discourage such a
> decision).

The reason why I haven't used it in the past is due to a percieved lack of
approval of the methodology from FD/DAM -- I really don't want to use a
different method of assessment only to have FD come back and say "we don't
think you've assessed the applicant sufficiently; go back and do it again"
-- it would suck for me, but it would *really* suck for the applicant.

If I were to assess an applicant in the manner I described above, I would
almost certainly structure the report differently, and would most likely not
have separate P&P/T&S stages (which would mangle the report, *and* make it
impractical to properly use the AM/applicant page on nm.d.o).

I'd possibly be willing to take on a new applicant and assess them under
this scheme, if there's a reasonable expectation that my applicant wouldn't
be unduly disadvantaged by the use of a very different assessment scheme.

- Matt



Reply to: