On 2004-07-15 22:09:35 +0100 Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 03:54:29PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:Really nice, but I already knew that. Now can you tell me what prevents FIFOprocessing?Doing it in FIFO would mean the DAM would not be allowed to start processing whoever's next before finishing up reviewing the one at the top of the queue.
Surely that's FIFO approval, not FIFO processing? It seems reasonable that DAM could simply request the further explanation and "requeue" the DAMned NM. Then at least the NM would be able to see their progress in the queue and time in DAMnation becomes some sort of function of how troublesome the application is.
[...] or could see someone in the queue whom he knows to be competent and valuable and would want to process first.
Is queue-jumping desirable? It really sucks to see people (with questionable philosophies expressed on lists) getting through NM in 10 days while you're dangling there for months without being able to detect anyone doing anything about you.
Feel free to move this to -project or -newmaint as appropriate, but please cc me on any -newmaint posts.
-- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing Please email about: BT alternative for line rental+DSL; Education on SMEs+EU FP6; office filing that works fast