On Jan 29, 2008, at 2:27 PM, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Tue Jan 29 13:16, Lex Spoon wrote:On Jan 29, 2008, at 4:24 AM, Matthew Johnson wrote:I strongly agree with Christoph. As it is I am of the opinion that it is too easy to get DM rights (particularly given the number of people whosaid 'it ought to take 3 months to become a DD' in response to mysuggestions of NM reform). One of the things which tempers that is the public way in which DMs are proposed, giving people the opportunity toreview the DM and react.Can you explain why you and Christoph think it is too easy to get DM rights?It may be worth referring to my original post to -newmaint[0] and mywiki page on the subject[1]. I think that the DM applications should bemanaged through the same overall process as NM and should require an(abbreviated) set of checks in the same style as NM. I think the currentNM process is too lengthy (mainly in administrative overhead, and it's not as bad now that DM exists), but I think that DM is an overreaction in the other direction.
Thanks for the links, but I have a hard time interpreting them as a reform of DM. It sounds like you are advocating for more of a fairly different DM process. That is interesting but I don't think it is very productive in this forum. Let's focus in this forum on making the DM setup we have work as well as possible.
No system is going to result in perfect uploads. The goal is to balance good uploads versus timely uploads. If there has really been only one controversial upload by a DM, then that seems like a very good track recordin practice. It would be hard to improve on such a low rate of bad uploads.It's not exactly been going for very long, and one every few months I would say is quite high...
At some point we just have to agree to disagree. I think one every few months is extraordinarily good, so good that it would be better to focus on other quality axes.
I fully agree with you that the experiment is young. Time will have to tell whether this keeps up.
-Lex