Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 23/06/09 at 15:30 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:55:42PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote: >>>> OK, then what I'm proposing is to identify one single entity where the >>>> decision is taken. Either is FD or is DAM. >>> It's DAM. DAM has always been the position that decides who is a DD and >>> who isn't. The whole FD/NM thing is just an advisory board to the DAM >>> if you want to call it that. >> Then drop FD, it looks like it is just a waste of time, given that in >> the "problematic" cases the dossier is just handed over to DAM for a >> new full review. >> >> But as things stand nowadays, I wouldn't be happy with that outcome, >> given that DAM is more understaffed than FD (2 people vs 4), with >> Joerg also involved in another time-consuming role (ftpmaster). >> >> Hence I would more welcome one of the following alternative outcomes: >> >> 1) drop FD *and* integrate the current FD people into DAM; it looks >> like accepting new members is the main part of DAM activities >> anyhow, so why bother with an extra advisory board? >> >> 2) change the "It's DAM" fact above, from now on "it will be FD" >> >> How do people feel about that? > > I like the idea a lot. /me too, either of them. Hopefully that would solve the current bottleneck. Cheers, Emilio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature