Re: Q: Small tasks best on the fly? was: Q: All: Account creation latency
Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Are you (or any other candidates) arguing for an NM-portfolio, a
> > document that summarises the applicant in a way that most developers
> > could understand why the applicant was given an account, if they saw
> > that document?
>
> We already have that with the short NM report sent to -newmaint.
I disagree. They seem suspiciously formulaic and lack the detail.
Compare and contrast
http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2007/12/msg00004.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2007/12/msg00065.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2007/12/msg00070.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2008/02/msg00002.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2008/03/msg00000.html
-- five different authors, but same strange turns of phrase.
(For example, "answered all my questions about the social contract,
DFSG, BTS, etc. in a good way" leaps out at me. Not wrong, as such,
but that's an unusual way to put it - has any applicant ever been
described as answering them "in a bad way"?)
> I was mainly thinking of a structured document where all info
> that need to be integrated in the LDAP are available (Name, Login,
> Alternate email, Keyid, ...) so that a script can take that as input
> and do all the job.
The report appears to be structured already, even if it's looking like
pseudo-English. Would you support adding the extra information needed
for LDAP along with replacing the pseudo-English with details needed
for easy verification - bug numbers, package names and so on - in a
structured way?
Regards,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: