On Tue, Nov 27, 2007, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > I believe that once you ask for being a DM or a DD, you implicitly > accept a peer review. I'd say that DMs usually are advocated, and it's > part of the responsibility of the advocate not to send someone asking > for being advocated when he's obviously not ready.
There are some private notes/exchanges in the NM process AFAIK. > One can regret that some people get publicly critiqued, but see the > Q-FUNK thread, I believe the mails that are the worst for him are the > ones _he_ sent and proved all the remarks being made about him being > true. But perhaps the messages from Q-FUNK are the worst because some people refrained from posting. > IOW, I believe it's half the "we do things in a transparent way" thing > and the fact that DM application is not an automatic step but a > conscious decision that make me think that such a "private" list isn't > needed. I firmly believe that giving a sense of responsibility to the > advocates gives more benefit on the long term. Transparent to whom exactly? To the Internet and Google servers? I don't think debian-newmaint@ is a place for teaching advocates about their sense of responsibilities. -- Loïc Minier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
