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

Re: Reforming the NM process

Generally, I'm disappointed with what looks like a failure to address
the "learning from the AM" culture which seems to be the main source
of delay and frustration for everyone. I've made one suggestion about
this already, but here's another: split AMs into a "fast track" who
just process obviously-ready candidates quickly and a "slow track" who
continue with the current months-long slog.

After a chat with Marc HE Brockschmidt, I've posted a new offer to
sponsor to my debian web space and taken on two new maintainers
already (but no uploads yet).  I have also stopped refusing to
advocate anyone, as I no longer believe current NM is much based on
name recognition. I will try to work with the maintainers to get them
obviously ready for NM and will comment publicly on this approach

I'm disappointed that Bernhard R. Link criticised non-NM
maintainers for not showing "enough commitment". Going through NM
isn't mainly about commitment today. It's seen by some as being
more about willingness to wait through months of frustration,
neglect and contempt. Maybe showing that skill is A Good Thing
that prepares NMs for dealing with some stubborn developers,
but it shouldn't be primary. Does Bernhard R. Link criticise
the maintainers he sponsors who aren't going for NM yet?

Kev asked:
> I would expect most NM folks to be on their best behavior while dealing
> with folks judging them. What about a live test on #debian with DD(ops)
> keeping notes on their skills while helping newbies for say a month.

It's probably as good as any other test that's been suggested,
whether in #debian or some other channel or system that suits
their cultural skills better. It's less permanent than handling
bugs.debian.org reports, but that also makes errors by learners
less costly too.

> (or see if the can last a few minutes in #debian-tech x-))

Arf! Have you been reading my web site? I'm not sure that I'd
last many minutes in #debian-tech (unless I was silent).


Reply to: