Re: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal - Use Cases
Pierre Habouzit <email@example.com> wrote: [...]
> > == N-M Delays ================
> This one suck, because NM delays are mostly fixeable, and DM will just
> make them not painful at all for DD, depriving the system to be fixed.
> This is exactly the use case I fear.
> That's why I'd like some efforts put in NM to fix some parts before
> considering DM again.
> [...] my proposal to revamp some bits of NM [...]
Again I see this idea that NM can be fixed without starting to build a
new implementation. I believe that the current system is broken by
design: there are too many single points of failure/delay and it tests
the wrong things. What evidence is there that NM can be fixed without
introducing a DM-like system to train and prove NMs?
Its current owners seemed determined just to throw more people at the
broken system with some minor tweaks, while rejecting beneficial
reforms like bad-advocate-bans, AM-led teams and NM worklogs - see
What happened to your reform proposals?
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct