"Gustavo Franco" <email@example.com> writes: > 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! How is someone a valuable contributor who wants to be a packaging DD, but can't maintain a package for a few months? Sorry, we don't ask for extra work, just for the work you should be doing anyway when you're applying as NM. > 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. I think I can handle this alone (thanks for the offer, anyway), but I'd like to discuss this in the project before enforcing such changes. Marc -- BOFH #221: The mainframe needs to rest. It's getting old, you know.
Description: PGP signature