Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 07:11:08PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> No, what is bureaucratic is having to wait one month for FD to review one >> application, just to say `hey it's complete`, and pass it to the DAM. Then wait >> another month. I don't see the point in it being reviewed twice if FD has no say >> in the final decision and his only task is to check that everything is complete. > > In practice this should only be a problem if the FD check is causing DAM > queue starvation. But then, if the DAM gets ahead of FD, there's no reason > they couldn't step in and pull directly from the FD queue, right? > > The converse, giving FD the same powers of DAM, is an expansion of the > powers of the FD members which I don't see justification for. If the DAM > thought the FD members were ready to be DAM, they could just as well propose > themselves that they should be added as DAM. > > I definitely *don't* agree that there's justification for automatically > merging the FD into DAM. OK, you have a point. However, as long as one of the teams (e.g. FD) stops duplicating the same task, and the other one is added more members, the result should be the same. Of course it may not be that easy to find new victims for the position... Emilio P.S.: not saying the FD or DAM are doing a bad job, it's just that duplicating the same task seems like a wasted effort to my eyes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature