Re: DAM queues processing
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:37:30PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> This is how I see the process right now, from the applicant's POV:
>
Actually it is:
> - Applicant applies
> - DD advocates
> (wait1)
- FD ask NM what they do in Debian? [1] Currently, this is a email sent manually.
- NM answers FD. If applicant is active, it can take some time :)
- FD evualuates and in some cases put the applicant in hold.
(wait 1.5 -> you are ok, wait for AM)
(wait 1 extended -> wait until you have contributed enought to get AM)
> - AM assigned
> - Work with the AM (P&P, T&S and whatever is needed)
> - AM sends report
> (wait2)
> - FD checks the application
> (wait3)
> - DAM reviews the application
> (wait4)
> - DAM creates the account
> - Key added to the keyring
> - Shell access to developer machines
>
This "sending a email" step is no documented in the webssite and I do not see
it a as a oficial step. But it could be included in the "FD evualuates NM to
assign AM" part.
[1]
http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/nm/trunk/doc/front-desk/templates/activity-poll?rev=994&sc=1
>
> - Reducing wait1 is complicated. Some possibilities for accelerating this are:
> + Recruiting more AMs
This is not easy. AM is not a "fun job" and recruiting DDs who are not really
interested in AMing (mentoring and teching in some level) is not a good idea.
If you do not like doing this too much and you do it because you kind of feel
forced, you will tend to procrastinate to answer your NM :)
I have not lived this, but I have seen this in others DDs who kind of feel
forced to help with NM.
Also, you have the DDs who would work as AM but do not fully like the current
process for many different reasons. For example, dislike the templates.
> + Reducing the time an AM spends with the applicant. Many people dislike
> this if it means less questions, so probably not a good idea.
> + Requiring applicants to apply late rather than soon...
As I pointed earlier in this thread, this is mostly responsability of the
advocate. DDs should not advocate people until they have shown some dedication,
good skills, motivation, etc.
> - wait2/3 could be merged by removing the duplicate work of both FD and DAM
> reviewing applications. Only one body should do it (e.g. DAM, and if wanted
> FD members joining it). That will remove wait2, and if more people joins
> DAM, reduce wait3.
>
Better guidelines to AM on how to do the AM report and send this direclty to
DAM, so we do not need the "check for completeness" step.
Some guidelines in what am should check together with some freedom for the AM
in how to check this would be interesting.
Ana
Reply to: