Re: DAM and NEW queues processing
[Lucas Nussbaum, 2009-06-23]
> On 23/06/09 at 12:06 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > No way. Most reports show that a lot of NMs don't know about a lot of
> > things asked during the NM process. This is true even for those who
> > are DM already.
>
> Is that really problem? We need people who take the right decisions (and
> that includes asking questions when they don't know or are not sure
> about something), not people who can repeat all our documentation from
> memory.
>
> I would personally be fine with a process where the applicant would only
> send a signed mail saying "I've read, understood and agre with the
> Debian social contract,the new maintainers guide, the developers
> reference, and the debian policy.", with 5 different DDs providing a
> detailed advocacy for the applicant.
>
> That's basically what we agreed to do for DM, and it works quite well.
If it would be up to me, I'd add more questions rather than remove them
(and make some[1] of them optional, see below) I'd also use "put on
hold" button more often if NM obviously didn't read the docs.
IMHO, the real problem (that causes delays) is that there are not enough
people in AM/FD and I guess we should do something about this instead.
I'm not helping as AM because I'm not interested in teaching NM f.e.
all this license/copyrights stuff, I'd happily check/teach f.e. Python
packaging instead... how about splitting questions into more categories
(we have 2 now: "P&P" and "T&S") and allow each category to be processed
by different AM? You'd have at least one more AM if I could choose only
few categories (although I probably should not take more
responsibilities, sponsoring is taking too much of my free time already)
Some categories could also be marked optional (yeah, I know AMs don't
have to ask all questions) if NM is not interested in packaging JAVA,
PHP or Python...
I don't understand delays in DAM queue, though. FD should already check
if AM did the good job, no?
[1] not more than ~20%
--
-=[ Piotr Ożarowski ]=-
-=[ http://www.ozarowski.pl ]=-
Reply to: