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

Re: Reforming the NM process

Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 06:40:34PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> 2.1 Multiple advocates
>> ----------------------
> We discussed this a bit on IRC, and feedback seemed positive, so I'll
> comment here as well.  I don't think having multiple advocates solves
> anything; if the problem is that you have a large pool of people acting as
> poor advocates, then requiring them to get *two* bad advocates is only
> slightly more challenging than getting one.

Actually, with the current "bad" advocates, this would really improve
the situation.

> It would be better if we could have clear guidelines for advocates, to cover
> the gap between what AMs are expecting of incoming NMs and who advocates are
> actually advocating; and if necessary, to disqualify certain DDs from
> advocating if they consistently abuse the system by ignoring these
> guidelines.

*sigh* Like the expulsion process, this would have the disadvantage of
singling out some developers and saying that they've done a bad job -
though it's (at least partially) true, it's a reason for yet another
flamewar. We have seen this with the expulsions - they had no success,
but were still a reason for long, pointless threads.

BOFH #66:
bit bucket overflow

Attachment: pgpcDVPG_e_Uz.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: