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

Re: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal

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

  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

Reply to: