Re: DAM queues processing
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 03:39:10PM +0200, 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:
> > 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.
>
The idea sounds good, but I think FD does more than "checking for
completeness".
Lucas, for what I understand, you have been reading (or at least receiving)
the FD email for some months now [1], from even before Bern were promoted
to FD. The goal was helping with some FD tasks without being FD. What
were those tasks? Something we could do better?
I see FD does the following:
- Checking advocate's email
- Asking applicant what does in Debian (via mail)
- Evualuating applicant activity and available AMs, in some moment assign AM
to NM.
- Checking all the report is complete. But not decide. This is the FD approval
step we want to remove. FD never rejects, just send the applicant back if
something is missing. (*)
- Hunting for AMs.
- Pinging periodically to AM-NM pairs that seem to be inactive.
- .... ?
So, from what I see here, it is not about removing FD but about removing one
of the FD tasks. Could we trust AM to write proper NM reports? Maybe improving
the documentation of what must be in the AM report would be the thing to do.
(*) However, from time to time, I have seen people with incomplete stuff in
the DAM stage.
[1] http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/nm/trunk/bin/fd_mailbox?view=log
Ana
Reply to: