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

Re: Advocate DM: Jose Parrella

* Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> [071117 09:28]:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 05:00:56PM +0000, Micah Anderson wrote:
> > How long should people wait until "about to be added to the DD one..."
> > would be considered too long and adding to the DM one to get around the
> > wait is reasonable?
>   What if we fix that problem, and concentrate only on that one, instead
> of trying to circumvent it with ersatz ?

What if we do both? Or are we unable to do two things at once?

>   We're doing exactly what I feared: DM will prevent people from fixing
> the real issues with the NM queue.

How exactly is this happening?

If I understand properly, people are against NMs becoming DMs, even for
a short period of time, because they really should become DDs, and the
fact that they can't in a reasonable time become a DD is somehow a reason 
why they shouldn't become a DM in the meantime? Someone please explain
the "somehow" handwaving part there, to me it seems like letting the
perfect be the enemy of the good. 

Either there is something I dont understand here, or people are using this 
particular NM/DM as a pawn for fixing a larger problem (DAM too slow), or 
grinding an axe over a GR they didn't like. If so, thats pretty lame. 
Dont get me wrong, I'm not taking either side in either of those battles 
when I say that manipulating an individual for the purposes of petty politics 
reveals a lot about one's character.

If you want to fix DAM or want to fix the DM GR, then do that, don't try
to solve that problem through witholding access from a NM. Or to quote,
"What if we fix that problem. . . instead of trying to circumvent it?" 
What I see are people witholding DM as a petty way around fixing the
real issues with the NM queue.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: