[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Problems with NM Front Desk

On Tuesday 06 July 2010, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I can't speak for the NM team, but if he was asked to go through DM
> first (and that's what I understood), I could understand that his NM
> application got removed for now.

This is the thing I'm having some problem with in the discussion so far.

Is it actually OK for FD to "demand" that candidates go through DM before 
applying for DD, or as part of the NM process?

As I remember it, DM was primarily intended as an alternative *end point* 
for those contributors who are not interested in going through the full NM 
procedure and are happy with both the facilities and limitations that DM 
offers. From his mails Manuel clearly intended to go for DD.

Sure, in a lot of cases getting DM first can help to be more productive 
sooner. But shouldn't that remain the choice of the candidate him/herself?

I can see loads of cases where going straight for DD is much more logical:
- contributors who's primairy interest is not packaging
- contributors who already have a very solid history of contributions
- contributors who work mainly on team-maintained packages and thus only
  need commit access to the team source repos while leaving the uploads
  to other team members
- contributors who have a good relationship with the current maintainer
  of a package or sponsors and thus see no need for upload rights

In Manuel's case I personally would say that getting DM status on the route 
to DD *does* seem to make sense, but still IMO that should be *his* 
option. In past discussions we have explicitly stressed that it should be 
possible to tailor the NM process to the ambitions and background of 
individual candidates, in discussion between the candidate and FD and/or 
assigned AM.

Have the FD and NM-team (silently?) inflated DM beyond what was originally 
intended? I would personally be against listing DM on the website as a 
required or even desired stage to go through for NM, as some have 
suggested; it should of course be listed as an option.

I agree with others that the main problem in this particular case seems to 
have been a communications failure. But IMO refusing or declining to go 
through DM should by itself never be a reason to reject a candidate. I 
don't think it was in this case; the escalated communication has probably 
However, the FD and DAM have a very strong responsibility when it comes to 
trying to avoid such failures given that new candidates probably will not 
be familiar with all options and terminology.


Reply to: