On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:16:12PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Matt Zimmerman wrote: > >And neither does the fact that some have been there for years indicate > >anything in particular. > > Here is where you're entirely and totally wrong. It indicates a > breakdown in the communication process.
Communication with whom? I don't think that anyone besides the applicant himself needs to be informed. > If these people are being delayed for a reason, the reason needs to be > written down publically in the appropriate place. I disagree; if the applicant knows why they are being delayed, then the fact that this information is not published on the website does not indicate that the process is broken. > If the people are in fact being rejected, they should be politely > REJECTED: either being told to try again later when they have more time > or skills, or to please not apply again at all (or for at least X > years); depending on the situation. This may cause some flames > from them, but will clear the air for everyone else. I agree. > If there's a > 3 month backlog just because DAM is too busy, the DPL > needs to promptly add more people to DAM, to work in parallel. > Including the DPL himself if necessary. It sounds like this is not > actually the case, oddly enough. DAM-ness does not seem to parallelize well; it is not a matter of simple manual labor. -- - mdz