Re: Reforming the NM process
On 4/11/06, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 3. Conclusions
> I'd like to implement the proposals I made in (2.1) and (2.2) as fast as
> possible, especially applying the rules in (2.2) to people already in the
> queue waiting for an AM. (2.3) is, as I said, a long-term thingy - it
> would be nice if it could happen at some point, but many details are not
> yet worked out, the infrastructure needs to be changed for it and we
> really need to decide if this is actually a good way.
I agree with 2.1 (Multiple advocates) and in part with 2.2 (Requiring
(more) work before applying). In part because it will help us block
some newcomers that aren't really into it, but we've some problems
already and starting the changes requiring more stuff from everybody
will discard more valuable contributors too!
I strongly disagree that 2.3 is a long-term thing. It should be
started years ago, but it isn't too late yet. We should push it with a
transition plan in mind (e.g: what we're going to do with the people
that is already waiting for DAM?), but the transition couldn't require
(more) work before applying, IMHO. We should block not really
interested people giving less privileges for those who do less as you
pointed out and be good with MIA and its procedures. I step in to help
writing a 1-year transition plan and contact the people that needs to
accept/reject some points, if you want.