Re: Fear the new maintainer process
In <[🔎] 20000726125740.A405@ulysses.alg.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>,
on "Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:57:40 +0200",
Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> wrote:
> I understand you are doing the best you can, and my answer is
> by no means personal. It is directed to the project.
> I can't help to be extremly worried about the new maintainer
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 01:31:22PM +0900, Taketoshi Sano wrote:
> > (There are several applicants who
> > does not respond at all, or holding the process for months and
> > finally decide not to join the project, as I read from the list).
> So what? It's not as if the entry in the queue costs any
> money. Just wait until you get a response. You don't need to
> run after your applicants like a mum after her children :)
It is not so easy task for me to read/write mails in not my mother
language, and the required stuff has sometimes heavy in its size,
so I can't handle the unlimited number of applicants at the same
time. I think that maximum (for me) may be 3 or 4. Holding the
inactive applications means the possibility of keeping away (or
worse, losing) other active applications.
I think that when your car broke and you can not move fast,
then you should not stop at the center of the road (and block
the others). Instead you should fix your car first of all
and then you can go anywhere you want.
> > And, if ever my rejection did occur,
> > it does not mean at all the permanent rejection. It just means
> > to drop it from the head of the queue, and probably to move at the
> > tail (if he re-send his application when he is ready to do).
> So what is the purpose of the rejection? It would only
> make it worse for everyone, increasing their workload.
But we can not wait anyone forever. The Debian Project needs
the active members NOW. If a new member can not work for the
project currently, then he does not need to be a member.
The membership in Debian is not a decoration or a medals of honour,
I think. It is just a requirement to work for our project
(a kind of working visa, maybe).
> > Please check the explanation on <http://www.debian.org/devel/join/nm-step5>
> > Only if any of the critical items can not be completed by the
> > applicant, will the application be rejected. These include:
> > * Failure to provide adequate identification.
> > * Failure to agree to our principles and procedures.
> > * Failure to deliver mutually agreed upon projects.
> > While deadlines are important, some extension of deadlines is
> > certainly reasonable. However, considering that the applicant has
> > considerable input into the creation of the schedule, long delays
> > increase the likelihood of the application being rejected. When a
> > project fails to be delivered, or the time for delivery was determined
> > to be too long, the applicant will be given one additional opportunity
> > to succeed at a similar task.
> If this is the way we are treating volunteers who want to help,
> Debian deserves to die.
Please remember the current members in the Debian (including us,
members in New NM team) are all "volunteers". We are not some
boring bureaucrats. Our time is limited, our human power is also
limited. And there are many waiting applicants who think very
seriously the future of the Debian, and are eager to help us NOW.
They need their working visa to start their task in this project
in full strength (many of them already work via their sponsors,
but it requires extra workload from them).
And we can not see if that applicant still live or die, if that
person does not feed any information at all. I don't think it is
wise to keep an application choking up the queue, which means
to keep the waiting people who wish to enter the queue longer.
> I knew that the new maintainer project is a serious mayhem.
> I was not aware of this single catastrophic point.
These pages has been published for months. If you have not
been aware of these at all, then I would think it means that
you don't have much interest in the status of the new NM team.
> I criticized the new procedure as soon as it was outlined by Wichert
> Ackermann, and never received an answer to my detailed critique.
I had read your critiques. I agreed with some of your point
(I remember that I myself forwarded some of your mails to
a mailing list of JP project to introduce your voice), but my
major concern and priority is to start the processing of the
queue anyway. There are people who definitely eager to help
us in spite of the obstacles which they have to get over.
If members like you, or even applicants, have objection against
the current scheme, then they are free to express their proposal
to improve the situation. But I will strongly protest if that
proposal is to close the currently runnning queue again. We
need to keep the gate open, even if the doorway is too narrow
to be expected.
> > Now the new maintainer queue has over 100 people who has been waiting
> > when their Application Manager is assigined for them. Total number in
> > the processing queue is about 200 while the number of Application Managers
> > is only about 30. We need more and more Application Managers now.
> I prophecised this in my critique as well. I knew that the additional,
> completely unnecessary workload would require a lot of volunteers work,
> which is better spend for other things.
I have worked for boot-floppies of potato for months while I have
worked in this new NM team as well as other tasks. And I think
these two are both important things for me.
To do these "additional, completely unnecessary workload" (in your word)
is the only thing what I can do to keep the gate open. If you can do
something to reduce the amount of these workload, then please go for it.
I will do what I can do for my priority.
> The people who developed this progress made some serious errors, and
> should now take some steps back and ease up the process again.
If "take some steps back" means to close the gate again, then
I will shout the objection loudly. There are people who has been
waiting to be registered for months (or years) and they eager to
help us as soon as they can.
> > While I am not always agree with your opinion, I always respect most of
> > your words, Marcus. I will wait his reply for other several weeks
> > to keep the honour of attending the famous hacker who will enter our
> > project (maybe) soon.
> This should be done for everybody.
I have done, and will do my best for all my applicants,
but I can not work at all when I have nothing as the reply
to my contact mail.
I wish to work as the helper for my applicants to be registered,
and don't wish to be the holder/collector of kite checks.
Taketoshi Sano: <firstname.lastname@example.org>,<email@example.com>,<firstname.lastname@example.org>