Hi Luk, 2008/10/23 Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Raphael Geissert wrote: >> >> Right, but do the members of the NMC cover the wide variety of >> programming languages? >> or what kind of review are they going to do? just packaging stuff? if >> it is just the latter it would be much easier and faster to send a RFC >> to -mentors and let people scream out loud. >> >> And please note that I said "QA side", with which I didn't mean to >> refer to the QA group, but to a variety of people who know what to >> look at and how to do it; not a random AM who happens to have already >> completed doing a review process successfully (which actually doesn't >> guarantee that the AM is competent enough, as the usual NM process >> consists on sending the templates and later reviewing the responses).
First of all I would like to apologise as it was not my intention to * offend/criticise anyone's work, * mean that NM is all about questions, as it of course isn't. I believe that impression was caused by my oversimplification of the NM process. > > You're very wrong here. The AM's job is to review if someone would be > capable of being a good Debian Developer. Reviewing responses to the > templates is *not* the main job. Have the prospective DD learn things; > get the prospective DD think and search before answering; and reviewing > actual tasks and skills by reviewing the prospective DD's packages next > to possible other 'tasks' takes most of the time. > > It's not at all about a questionaire where you only have to tick the > right answers because that would defeat the spirit of the process. For > many applicants it takes a long time because they think it's just a > questionaire... Getting a little bit back on my point: what I wanted to mean with my explanation of "QA side" is that: * nobody is perfect, * not always packages are checked as rigorous as they, at times, are at -mentors So, my proposal is more or less like this: 1.- Keep everything in public MLs 2.- Assign a member of the NMC to the "case"[1] who will of course be willing to work on it 3.- Publicly request[2] people to review the package[3], although the NMC member will also do it on her own. 4.- Every review should be handled[4] by the NMC member and a decision be made (also refer to [1]). And as an extra note: any NMC member should be able to take over the request at any time in cases such as when the review/process is not objective (i.e. there are personal feelings). [1] This member will take care of the case/request and will write a brief, but explanatory, report when making a decision. [2] Teams, co-maintainers, etc should probably be CCed. [3] No review should be disregarded, no matter whether it comes from a D<something> or from a D<nothing> as any input should be considered valuable. [4] Any extra investigation needed originated by a contributed review should be made before any decision is made. Does that sound better? comments? suggestions? positive criticism? Although I'm not still very convinced I at least want to propose something that, if approved, would make me happier than the originally-proposed process. > > Cheers > > Luk > Cheers, -- Raphael Geissert - Debian Maintainer www.debian.org - get.debian.net Quentin Crisp - "If at first you don't succeed, failure may be your style." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]