Re: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal
On 23/06/07 at 13:43 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> AM delays
> ~~~~~~~~~
> For the former, well, if it's because of the NM taking too much time,
> the AM usually put their applicant on hold. That works (IMHO) quite
> fine, and is not a problem. OTOH AM being to slow is one, and happens. I
> think FD should be more preemptive on that matter. I mean, we could draw
> some not too formal lines, like: an AM should not answer in more than a
> couple of weeks to answer.
Why would it be OK for an NM to be slow, but not OK for an AM to be
slow? When an NM is slow, he is consuming time that his AM could use for
another application... And there are many cases of NM being active in
Debian, but just thinking of their T&S as low priority stuff.
Something reasonable could be to say that AMs are expected to answer in
MAX(2 weeks, (time taken by the NM to reply)). Which you penalize slow
NMs. And maybe, to ask AM and NM if they think that they are going to be
fast or slow at answering, and assign couples based on that, to avoid
the case where a fast AM gets stuck with a slow NM.
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Reply to: