On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 03:16:46PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > 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. It is not OK, we already have the HOLD thingy to deal with them, and I think it works pretty well already, hence there is nothing to fix. And even when AM's are not in Hold (I have a NM who didn't answered me in months that I did not put on Hold yet), it's not necessarily a problem, as in my case, I don't want to have another NM, I won't have the motivation to process him right now :) > 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. by "a couple of weeks" I was not saying 2 weeks but "some weeks". I was first tempted to say a month, but as I said it as a lose time delay, that could become 1.5 month and I find that too long, whereas up to 4 weeks is in many cases very acceptable (if it's not the general rule I mean). Anyways, I don't want to see a "2 weeks maximum delay for the AM answers" a strict rule, that would suck, like I said we cannot put strong requirements on people, I just would like to see FD use preemption over AM scheduling a bit more often. It really has the legitimacy to do so. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgptxbxjNvdQR.pgp
Description: PGP signature