On mar, nov 27, 2007 at 09:30:16 +0000, Loïc Minier wrote: > On Mon, Nov 26, 2007, Enrico Zini wrote: > > [note: considering that this list is public and googlable, I don't feel > > comfortable in expressing negative judgements in it. Could a > > non-publicly-archived mailing list be used for the purpose?] > > I second that request; I felt exactly the same. I believe that once you ask for being a DM or a DD, you implicitly accept a peer review. I'd say that DMs usually are advocated, and it's part of the responsibility of the advocate not to send someone asking for being advocated when he's obviously not ready. Yes advocating someone is an important step, and yes, you risk to face opposition. It's not that hard as an advocate to ask a few people if this or this applicant should be accepted as a DM or not if you're unsure. One can regret that some people get publicly critiqued, but see the Q-FUNK thread, I believe the mails that are the worst for him are the ones _he_ sent and proved all the remarks being made about him being true. IOW, I believe it's half the "we do things in a transparent way" thing and the fact that DM application is not an automatic step but a conscious decision that make me think that such a "private" list isn't needed. I firmly believe that giving a sense of responsibility to the advocates gives more benefit on the long term. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgphMg_K9y9X3.pgp
Description: PGP signature