On 23/06/09 at 16:09 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 04:45:10PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > >On 23/06/09 at 16:18 +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote: > >> > >> And we already have DM to avoid the frustration to not being able to upload > >> trivial packaging changes. > >> Now DM has been here for some time, we might consider improve it, but that > >> is > >> another issues. > > > >I've been advocating people "too early" (i.e, I've advocated people so > >that they could start NM, while in the meantime, I wouldn't have > >advocated them for DM). The reason is that the "unassigned applicants" > >list is huge, so, when considering whether you should advocate someone > >or not, you basically have to wonder whether the person will behave well > >when he gets an AM in 6 months. > > > >It all depends on the meaning of the advocacy. Does it mean "I believe > >that X is ready to be a DD now" (which would be stupid, since X will > >wait at least a year before becoming a DD) or "I believe that X is ready > >to start the NM process". > > So you're complaining that the process takes too long, but you've been > adding people into it when they're not ready and therefore adding to > the length of the queue. That looks like a problem right there.
I don't see the point of waiting until someone is ready to be a DD to advocate him, if he/she is still going to wait for 6 months (in the best case) or a year or more to become a DD. Also, looking at the various drop outs from NM, it seems that I'm not the only one advocating people that are not 100% ready to become a DD. The last NM who "graduated" after I advocated him was Barry deFreese, and I don't really regret advocating him early (actually, I don't remember if it was really early or not) ;) > No, I'm not saying that's the *only* problem. I'd be the first to > agree that the NM setup is far from perfect, but I'm also not > convinced that we should be making it *too* much easier for the > applicants. I *never* said that I wanted to make the NM process easier (in the sense of "requiring less skills") for the applicants. I want to make it shorter, more interesting (i.e the applicant should be able to do real work), and requiring less manpower from the current DDs. Imagine a process where we "only" require 5 recommendation emails from existing DDs. First, it is obvious that different requirements would apply to those recommendations, than to the current advocate emails: since the applicant would be a DD almost immediately after the 5 emails have been received, it is clear that current DDs would only advocate people when they are fully ready to be a DD. And from the applicant point of view, getting 5 DDs to write an email recommending you looks a lot more difficult that answering 50 questions for which the answers are all available on the internet. It requires a lot more social skills, and probably a lot more work to get 5 DDs to trust you enough to say "I want X to become a DD now, provided that 4 other DDs agree." -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org