As I have wrote before, may major concern is to get more
new members into our project NOW. I have worked for this.
I don't wish to be a clitic who does not work using his own
time and resources for what he try to criticize.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on Wed, 26 Jul 2000 20:31:44 +0100,
Mark Brow
On Wednesday 26 July 2000, at 12 h 57, the keyboard of Marcus Brinkmann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > the processing queue is about 200 while the number of Application Managers
> > is only about 30. We need more and more Application Managers now.
>
> I prophecised this in my critique as well
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 06:14:56AM +1000, Anand Kumria wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 02:56:10PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > The problem is with applicants who basically don't respond when NM tries
> > to get in touch with them, and it seems fair to put some of the effort
> > for avoiding tha
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 02:56:10PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 03:23:06PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > Am Mit, 26 Jul 2000 15:11:08 Mark Brown Sie:
>
> > > It's not about the entry in the queue - it's about the time it takes the
> > > application manager to work this
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 02:59:12PM +0200, Joop Stakenborg wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:57:40 Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > Hi Taketoshi Sano,
> >
> > I understand you are doing the best you can, and my answer is
> > by no means personal. It is directed to the project.
> >
> > I can't help to
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 03:06:21PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> This entire thread seems to presume diligence on the part of the AM
> and lackadaisy on the part of the applicant, not mentioning cases
> where the reverse is true.
Both could be problems and both need to be addressed. At present pe
> It's not about the entry in the queue - it's about the time it takes the
> application manager to work this out when they try to process that
> applicant. It's frustrating and it's time that could be better spent
> getting another applicant through the process.
This entire thread seems to pres
Hi. excuse me to have rant on the list.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 26 Jul 2000 12:55:23 -0400,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
> In my case, nobody ever informed me that a three-week deadline, or
> whatever it is, existed.
For the record, it is not "three-week deadline". I wr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian Mays) writes:
> > Brian Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > Surely you do not believe this, do you? There will ALWAYS be useful
> > > software (at least, useful to someone) with licenses that fail our
> > > somewhat arbitrary criteria for what we consider to be fre
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
> In my case, nobody ever informed me that a three-week deadline, or
> whatever it is, existed.
Well, that is something that should be corrected. The applicants need
to know the timeline established for the procedure. It's only fair.
> I was utt
Hi.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on "26 Jul 2000 12:59:06 -0400",
with "Re: Please reply soon, or I could not proceed (Re: how to be a rude bastard?)",
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
tb> I was utterly unaware that a rapid response was suddenly required.
tb> Perhaps this should b
Hi, all!
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:31:22 +0900,
on Thanks for your information (Re: Please reply soon, or I could notproceed),
Taketoshi Sano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> on "Wed, 26 Jul 2000 01:47:28 +0200",
> Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PRO
> Brian Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Surely you do not believe this, do you? There will ALWAYS be useful
> > software (at least, useful to someone) with licenses that fail our
> > somewhat arbitrary criteria for what we consider to be free.
Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> repli
On Jul 26, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Brian Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Surely you do not believe this, do you? There will ALWAYS be useful
> > software (at least, useful to someone) with licenses that fail our
> > somewhat arbitrary criteria for what we consider to be free.
>
> D
Brian Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Surely you do not believe this, do you? There will ALWAYS be useful
> software (at least, useful to someone) with licenses that fail our
> somewhat arbitrary criteria for what we consider to be free.
Does the phrase "somewhat arbitrary" denote your respe
Taketoshi Sano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas, I have sent the first contact mail to you at July 9, and also
> sent the 2nd mail to you at yesterday (July 25). I have been waiting
> your reply for more than two weeks. I wonder you have gone away off
> from the network, but since you can
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian Mays) writes:
> Then explain that to the new maintainer team and ask for an extension.
Incidentally, the notion of an "extension" is fine, but only if there
is communication of the need to ask for one.
In my case, nobody ever informed me that a three-week deadline, or
w
Hi.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on "Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:57:40 +0200",
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I understand you are doing the best you can, and my answer is
> by no means personal. It is directed to the project.
OK.
> I can't help to be extremly worried about the new mainta
On 26 Jul 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 05:48:26PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > > And WHAT makes you think that a delay is a sign of "limited interest"?
> >
> > How else can a lack of reply be interpreted?
Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Why not processing sponsored developers separately ?
It's contrary to _my_ interests, since I'm not sponsored yet
(and am not yet ready to ask for sponsorship for a new
xmailtool upload...), but it certainly seems fair that those
who are already actively contributing to De
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 12:57:40PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> I can't help to be extremly worried about the new maintainer
> procedure.
I am still, but in this particular case I obviously overreacted.
I was projecting my grief with the projects social development
on a single point of failur
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marcus Brinkmann) wrote:
> We should just not actively throw [applicants] out if the reply takes
> long. The process should allow for random delays on both sides,
> otherwise there is something wrong.
I don't see anything wrong with a reasonable deadline. The applicant
can a
Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 05:48:26PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > And WHAT makes you think that a delay is a sign of "limited interest"?
>
> How else can a lack of reply be interpreted?
In my case, my office was being moved, email was very bac
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actively monitoring "delayed" applicants (to recheck their status etc.)
> does take time, no matter how you engineer the process.
That's true, but I think the appropriate thing to do is say to the
potential volunteer "you seem to be too busy right now to
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 06:15:00PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 11:58:16AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > How can this "holding up" happen? And if it indeed can happen, this
> > > is an inherent problem of the process, and the process should be
> > > changed to allow f
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 05:48:26PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 11:13:26AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > Agreed, and their lack of interest might be holding up others in the NM
> > process that ARE willing to contribute. NM team needs to set a hard limit
> > on how lon
>
> Even if you don't see any connections, and agree with the general
> principles of the new maintainer procedure, you still have to answer
> the question: What is so extremely troublesome with waiting for
> several months before closing a record? And can those reasons be
> fixed by modyfing the
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 11:58:16AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > How can this "holding up" happen? And if it indeed can happen, this
> > is an inherent problem of the process, and the process should be
> > changed to allow for such delays without holding other people up.
> >
> > They don't need to
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 11:57:58AM -0400, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 05:48:26PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > And WHAT makes you think that a delay is a sign of "limited interest"?
>
> How else can a lack of reply be interpreted?
Note we are talking about a matter of
> How can this "holding up" happen? And if it indeed can happen, this
> is an inherent problem of the process, and the process should be
> changed to allow for such delays without holding other people up.
>
> They don't need to "persue" something, they just need to wait.
Actively monitoring "dela
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 05:48:26PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> And WHAT makes you think that a delay is a sign of "limited interest"?
How else can a lack of reply be interpreted?
--
According to the latest figures, 43% of all statistics are totally worthless.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
I am answering both replies in one mail.
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 11:13:26AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 09:08:23AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> >
> > > I want to repeat: The applicant wants to help US. WE require th
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Agreed, and their lack of interest might be holding up others in the NM
> process that ARE willing to contribute. NM team needs to set a hard limit
> on how long they will persue a potential developer, after that they get
> dequeued.
Why not processing
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 09:08:23AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>
> > I want to repeat: The applicant wants to help US. WE require the
> > cumbersome new maintainer procedure. So WE have the responsibility
>
> Uh, WE also have 500 other develope
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> I want to repeat: The applicant wants to help US. WE require the
> cumbersome new maintainer procedure. So WE have the responsibility
Uh, WE also have 500 other developers, the last thing we need is to
actively persue people who have a limited inte
Am Mit, 26 Jul 2000 15:56:10 Mark Brown Sie:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 03:23:06PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > Am Mit, 26 Jul 2000 15:11:08 Mark Brown Sie:
>
> > > It's not about the entry in the queue - it's about the time it takes the
> > > application manager to work this out when they t
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 03:23:06PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Am Mit, 26 Jul 2000 15:11:08 Mark Brown Sie:
> > It's not about the entry in the queue - it's about the time it takes the
> > application manager to work this out when they try to process that
> > applicant. It's frustrating and
Am Mit, 26 Jul 2000 15:11:08 Mark Brown Sie:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 12:57:40PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 01:31:22PM +0900, Taketoshi Sano wrote:
>
> > > (There are several applicants who
> > > does not respond at all, or holding the process for months and
> > >
Am Mit, 26 Jul 2000 14:59:12 Joop Stakenborg Sie:
> If you are
> not happy with the guidelines we have set up, why don't you start a
discussion
> on nm-discuss?
> Marcus wrote:
> > I criticized the new procedure as soon as it was outlined by Wichert
> > Ackermann, and never received an answer t
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 12:57:40PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 01:31:22PM +0900, Taketoshi Sano wrote:
> > (There are several applicants who
> > does not respond at all, or holding the process for months and
> > finally decide not to join the project, as I read from t
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:57:40 Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Hi Taketoshi Sano,
>
> I understand you are doing the best you can, and my answer is
> by no means personal. It is directed to the project.
>
> I can't help to be extremly worried about the new maintainer
> procedure.
>
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2
On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 09:51:02PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> Thus I would like to request that someone cookup a python/perl script to
> check this out. The basic operation would be to take the mirror list and
> probe each mirror to determine how it is feeling and then write a new
> mirror l
Hi Taketoshi Sano,
I understand you are doing the best you can, and my answer is
by no means personal. It is directed to the project.
I can't help to be extremly worried about the new maintainer
procedure.
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 01:31:22PM +0900, Taketoshi Sano wrote:
> (There are several appl
43 matches
Mail list logo
