[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Reforming the NM process

Simon Huggins <huggie@earth.li>
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 02:03:10PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > [...] A lot of the questions repeatedly confirm an ability to look
> > stuff up and restate it, testing research skills and language skills,
> > rather than knowledge. [...]
> I'd rather someone knew how to find out the answer, than knew all the
> answers to a specific set of questions.  That way when faced with a
> question they don't know the answer to they will have a good idea of
> where to look or who to ask. [...]

If we want to test research skills, let's test that clearly,
rather than dressing it up as a test of technical competence.
Also, let's split out the language skills testing, one way
or another.

Are there any comments on the idea of moving the educational
part of the AM task to the advocate in order to make AM and FD
decisions easier?

>From two emails up the thread:
> > Suggestion: Ask advocates to take on the formative/educational
> > part of the current AM role and prepare a summary in a given
> > format about the applicant. The summary could then be used as
> > the basis for simpler summative testing by an AM, with swift
> > referral back to advocate and applicant with direction, if the
> > AM or FD is not satisfied. [Reasons... References...]
( http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/04/msg00206.html )

Laux nur mia opinio: vidu http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Bv sekvu http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Reply to: