Hubert Chan wrote on 06/01/2006 22:40: > On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 19:00:44 +0100 (CET), "Thijs Kinkhorst" <kink@squirrelmail.org> said: > > I assume FD is a pre-screen, so that they can send back applications > that fail on some more obvious criteria. DAM may need to do more > thorough checks. FD's checks ensure that applications that reach DAM > are more ready to be processed, reducing DAM's load by decreasing the > number of applications they need to go through. Yes, FD checks are intended to be pre-screening done to save the DAM some work. However if the AMs do their jobs right, this pre-screening should always result in an "OK", which would mean the whole check was utterly useless (since the AM already did it before and the DAM will be doing it anyway). Thijs' calculation that the FD check would need to eliminate over 50% of all applications (or rather: ask for more (or more precise) answers) to actually save some work is a bit off course. It does save the DAM some work as soon as it eliminates a single application, but it won't ever save any work of the total workload. So what we actually need to know to even see potentials for bottleneck-elimination, we would need to know how many independent checks Debian deems necessary to accept an applicant as being sufficiently qualified. So: Does Debian really need the three independent checks done currently? Or would two checks be enough? IMHO, two checks would be enough, so either AM + FD oder AM + DAM. FD might take some parts of the checks from DAM if DAM is asked to keep doing a full check, but it will be too much good if both do a full check. _IF_ it is not the case that FD and DAM both do a full check, it would be nice (if for nothing else) for transparancy reasons if they published who checks which parts,. cu, sven cu, sven
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature