Re: How does NM work? (was: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal)
Frank Küster <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> MJ Ray <email@example.com> wrote: [...]
> > main things tested by NM now seem to be tolerance of boredom, stupid
> > questions and poor social skills of DDs, along with the ability to
> > paraphrase from key docs, which are not really key indicators of who
> > will be a good DD.
> When I passed NM in early 2003 (I think), it was completely different to
> that. Can you point me to the information what has changed? Or may it
> be that this depends very much on the AM?
Yes, I believe it depends much on the AM, and some on the history of
the NM. I'd expect daniels to be fairly good (but he's no longer an
AM) and maintaining famous packages like tex probably speeds up others.
This is part of my complaint: it's bad for balance and for consistency
for NM to depend so much on multi-function AMs and their work. Moving
to an NM-portfolio system would help fix that.
However, my data is limited in two ways: firstly, the NM process does
not produce much data beside that summarised on https://nm.debian.org/
- indeed, Neil McGovern was flamed by Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt for
publishing *too much* detail of his review of my ex-sponsoree eriks -
and secondly, I have only independently reviewed about a dozen people.
If it will change anyone's opinion, I'm willing to run a wider but
less detailed survey about this.
Hope that explains,
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op.
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/