Re: Fear the new maintainer process
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 02:59:12PM +0200, Joop Stakenborg wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:57:40 Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > Hi Taketoshi Sano,
> > 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
> > procedure.
> > 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 :)
> Should an application manager still sit on his hands if an applicant
> fails to provide all the details after 3 months (this has happened to
> me)? Right, it does not cost you any money, but the work you do for
> applicants should at least give you the idea it is worthwile doing.
An AM should be a person's AM until they finished the entire process.
Whether that process takes hours or months should be irrelevant. AMs
can always request addition applicants while they are waiting if they
feel they are idling.
> > > 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.
> > > 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.
> Hard words. The whole meaning of nm-step5 is to give us some kind of framework
> to hold on to, like the description of all the other steps is.
> 25 people have set up guidelines for the process of becoming a developer.
Kind of. The guidelines were setup by a few; they followed by most of the
AMs. Convientently problems raised are ignored are deemed to be unimportant.
Unfortunately a number of AMs appear to be afraid to speak up and explain
their position to Dale but are quite happy to do so in private.
> I think it is a good reference. 'Rules' can always change. If you are
> not happy with the guidelines we have set up, why don't you start a discussion
> on nm-discuss?
Oh, Bug #63444 has magically been fixed? The intermittent failures still
occur for me -- or maybe the Cabal is out to get me.
> > I knew that the new maintainer project is a serious mayhem.
> > I was not aware of this single catastrophic point.
> You call it catastrophic, I call it common sense.
? That one AM rejects an applicant after having collected some portion of the
relevant information and leaves it to another AM? Is that what you meant by
> > > > I saw such things coming when I first read about the new new maintainer
> > > > procedure. I still thing it is overly complicated. Oh well.
> > >
> > > If you think it is definitely important thing to make him a member of
> > > Debian, then you can yourself apply as one of Application Managers.
> > I criticized the new procedure as soon as it was outlined by Wichert
> > Ackermann, and never received an answer to my detailed critique.
> You must be an expert on this field.
But Wichert is? Are you trying to justify no response from a proposer of
a new procedure -- I don't think you can.
> No. I cannot see any serious errors. I can see people trying very hard
> to get a grip on the new-maintainer process. Their effort certainly
> is worth it. I am sure that in the end something good will come out.
The identification step is a serious error.
Applicants whose keys are signed by existing developers must still
submit a photographic ID of themselves. If there was a good reason
for them to do (applicants whose keys are *already* signed by existing
developers) you'd expect all current developers to have a photograph