Re: DAM and NEW queues processing
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 11:46:31AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> If 'not using the templates' is just an excuse for "I think there's just
> way too much stuff in the templates, and I want to get this over with,
> with as little effort as possible", then I will not accept it. However,
> if the mailbox convinces me that the AM did indeed thorougly check the
> skills and knowledge of the NM, in about as thorough a manner as would
> be done through use of the templates (or better, which is hardly
> difficult), then I personally do not object to people ignoring the
> templates; on the contrary.
To be honest some of my response at this point is due to the fact that I
think that there is far too much of the wrong sort of thing in the
templates but there's also a part of it that's down to not seeing any
way to deliver the same thing that doesn't involve using the templates.
There's just too many things that need to be covered.
However, this was less true at the time the templates started and even
then the impression was being created that untemplated reports were
being frowned on. It wasn't that there was an announcement at some
point that
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 09:20:00PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Personally I think it's far more interesting to try to get an idea of
> > how they'll handle things if they're working on something they've not
> > looked at before and how they'll handle things when stuff doesn't go
> > according to plan. The big lists of questions kind of work against
> > this.
> That is most certainly true; the big list of questions is mostly an
> attempt at trying to cover as much as possible, so anyone (even those
> who clearly know their stuff) are tested thoroughly. Personalizing the
Right, it appears to be trying to make sure that someone might possibly
run into in Debian has been covered. Like I say, this is a large part
of my problem with it at this point - I don't think that is an
achievable or useful goal and it does lock out people like translators
(though that's more of a theoretical concern than a practical one).
> process by asking little questions about things the applicant is clearly
> an expert on, but asking more and doing more mentoring on areas the
> applicant is not an expert on, is certainly welcome. I definitely would
> like to see more people doing so.
It's not 100% clear to me that it's a good idea for the AM to be doing
mentoring as well. It certainly doesn't help the queue statistics :)
Reply to: