Re: DAM and NEW queues processing
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 04:45:10PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>On 23/06/09 at 16:18 +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote:
>>
>> And we already have DM to avoid the frustration to not being able to upload
>> trivial packaging changes.
>> Now DM has been here for some time, we might consider improve it, but that is
>> another issues.
>
>I've been advocating people "too early" (i.e, I've advocated people so
>that they could start NM, while in the meantime, I wouldn't have
>advocated them for DM). The reason is that the "unassigned applicants"
>list is huge, so, when considering whether you should advocate someone
>or not, you basically have to wonder whether the person will behave well
>when he gets an AM in 6 months.
>
>It all depends on the meaning of the advocacy. Does it mean "I believe
>that X is ready to be a DD now" (which would be stupid, since X will
>wait at least a year before becoming a DD) or "I believe that X is ready
>to start the NM process".
So you're complaining that the process takes too long, but you've been
adding people into it when they're not ready and therefore adding to
the length of the queue. That looks like a problem right there.
No, I'm not saying that's the *only* problem. I'd be the first to
agree that the NM setup is far from perfect, but I'm also not
convinced that we should be making it *too* much easier for the
applicants.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
Welcome my son, welcome to the machine.
Reply to: