Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] > my (or not only mine, but I like them) ideas about that: > > 1) NM has to become a FIFO at each step: AM assigning, DAM > verification, ... because this is *predictable*. If someone does > not deserves to have an AM assigned or asks for time (because he > takes a trip over the world, or any other reason), those have to be > put in a side queue, or have a "frozen" attribute, that makes the > time they have spent in a particular queue be stopped (and of > course, queues have to be sorted by time passed in that queue).
It already works that way, just without an explicit "frozen" attribute. > That looks stupid, but for the guy who is there since 4 or 5 > monthes, I can assure you it's not. I spent a whole month on the > last damn line of the « Applicants waiting for Front Desk > approval » step on [2]. And it was really a pain to see the queue > move forward, and see people that were in that step since less time > that I was go through. That contributes to the bad reputation of NM > queue a **LOT**. > > 2) we should ask NM's to show proofs of their work *before* having an > AM. I've heard many people speak of asking an applicant to be able > to show work they have done in debian. Packaging, work in a team, > whatever. E.g. I've heard proposals where applicant would be asked > to write a wiki page, with *links* that show their work (bugs > sorting, RC bug fixes, uploads, works with a sponsor, ...) with > links to the relevant BTS/PTS/Mail-lists posts/... entries. The front desk already does these checks before assigning an applicant. > And a candidate that has not enough to show HAS TO BE PUT ON HOLD. > If the rule is clear, nobody will complain. > > 3) The full process is heavy for AM too. and afaict, if an AM has no > more time, or wants to step back, the NM he deal with can be slowed > down a LOT. > > ==> I'd suggest that the whole NM process could use a special email > address, on @newmaint.debian.org for example, that put the mail > into a mbox that any AM can have access to. So that if a NM > complains about his AM beeing absent or too slow, everybody can > *look* at it, and know if the complain is legitimate. The complaints are all pretty much legitimate. > this also easy the validating task more incremental, as each NM > could be followed by many persons. E.g. it would makes really sense > to have some read-only (viewable only by persons that are involved > with newmaint work) imap/nntp/... accounts, so that anybody could > check them when they have time, and eventually report problems even > before the DAM/FD has to review those applications. > > 4) thanks to 3, we could also involve sponsors and DD that work > regulary with some given NM to his NM-mailbox. If a DD sponsors > someone, given the time and involvment it represents (I sponsor 3 > persons atm, so I know what I'm speaking of), it does not looks > that stupid to try to involve those in the application of their > pupil. > > I'm not sure on what they could do, but I'm confident someone more > used to the NM process could have brilliant ideas about that. > > 5) I read Pascal Hakim's mail about what beeing DD means with big > interest. a short (~50-60 lines) mail should be sent to any > applicant, explaining that beeing a DD is a big responsability, and > that the NM queue is not about giving a reward, but about checking > that the applicant can handle that responsability well. So that > applicants that are too weak on some points can be sent back to > that text, and can't pretend they weren't informed in the first > place. > > is that beeing elitist ? certainly. But I don't see any problems in > beeing elitist. If the process is readable, that the rules are > clear enough, and the results predictable, then nobody can > honnestly contest anything very long. > > 6) we should NEVER put any restrictions on time of any sorts. the > point 1) sets the rules: either you are the one that spent the most > time in that step, and you are the next to be processed, and thanks > to the wonderful work of FD, you know that will happen. > > either you don't qualify, and you will be put on hold (with an > explanation) or freezed (on your own request). > > I'd also suggest that candidates that are in "freeze" or on "hold" > at any stage could unfreeze/unhold themselves alone, that should > put them back in the queue where they belong (remember, one stage, > sorted by ascending time you spent in that stage, hold/freeze time > substracted). and if you abuse that (e.g. you un-hold yourself > without improving/solving the reason you were put on hold) that > could be a reason for expulsion from the NM queue, or putting back > at the stage 0 or ... > > that's in fact a scheduling algorithm. It as a fairness property > that is vital for the sanity of the queue. > > Sorry for the very long mail. > > PS: I'd be really interested to work as an AM, and I've not found on > nm.d.o what I have to do to apply for that... > > [1] https://nm.debian.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > [2] https://nm.debian.org/nmlist.php > -- > ·O· Pierre Habouzit > ··O [EMAIL PROTECTED] > OOO http://www.madism.org -- Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.
