Hi, Rejections ----------
We have a couple of rejections coming up; here's what I'm proposing to do. There will be two types of rejection: hard and soft rejections. Soft rejections is my way of saying ``Do I really have to?''; i.e. I'm not happy with a candidate, but I'm not unhappy enough to resort to a hard rejection. A soft rejected applicant will be put on hold in the DB and this list will be notified. I'll then leave it up to you guys to decide what to do. If the applicant gets enough "yes" votes/approvals/whatever, I'll consider my initial decision overturned and accept him under protest. I'm not dreadfully fussed what the magic number of approvals is and who can make them, so I welcome suggestions on that detail. A hard rejected applicant is rejected; no discussion. I consider this part of my delegated powers under the constitution and (FWIW) the new DPL agrees. You can overturn this decision (no power in Debian is absolute) by way of a GR, but that's about it. Note neither of these rejection methods are intended to be common place, hard rejections especially. If I hard reject someone I genuinely believe that I can not in good faith trust them to be a Debian developer. Reapplying from a soft rejection will require an 'ok' from the NM committee after an as-of-yet undetermined time span. Details on the length of the time span and how an 'ok' is generated are undecided and again suggestions/comments welcome. Reapplying from a hard rejection will require an 'ok' from DAM (and NM committee too, if you want; I'm not fussed, but the DAM part is non-optional). The time span for hard rejections will be determined on a case by case basis. For the benefit of the applicant more than anything else, I don't intend to post details publicly of either form of rejection. I'm unlikely to get involved in a public dispute, regardless, but the only way it'll happen at all is if the applicant initiates it. Reprocessing ------------ Some of you may have noticed your applicants being reprocessed from time to time by Martin. This is at my request and is my ``fault'' (as it were), so if you want to flame someone for it, flame me. In any event, what I do is basically this: if the applicant's report was sent in recently (say < 1 month ago) and I have a problem (missing information/whatever), I well generally contact the AM or applicant. However, if the applicant has been waiting a long time (> 1 month), I will generally ask Martin to reprocess the applicant for the relevant steps. This is not meant as insult to the AM in question; it comes down to two things: a) I don't feel comfortable having ``ignored'' (read: not had time to process) the AM's report for so long and then nitpicking several months later, b) Martin is, for better or worst, the AM I am most comfortable with; if I ask him to reprocess someone, I know I will only have to do it once and there will not be any unnecessary back and forth, thus reducing the time the applicant has to wait (since he's already been waiting too long). I also find another AM's view helpful in some situations. *shrug*. Anyway, short version: please don't take offence; none is meant. -- James
