On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:37:30PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> This is how I see the process right now, from the applicant's POV:
>
Actually it is:
> - Applicant applies
> - DD advocates
> (wait1)
- FD ask NM what they do in Debian? [1] Currently, this is a email sent
manually.
-
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 25/06/09 at 22:37 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> > [...]
> > - DAM reviews the application
> > (wait4)
> > - DAM creates the account
> > - Key added to the keyring
> > - Shell access to developer machines
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > - I don't k
On 25/06/09 at 22:37 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> [...]
> - DAM reviews the application
> (wait4)
> - DAM creates the account
> - Key added to the keyring
> - Shell access to developer machines
>
> [...]
>
> - I don't know why there is wait4. I guess it's because DAM members process
>
Hi all,
This is how I see the process right now, from the applicant's POV:
- Applicant applies
- DD advocates
(wait1)
- AM assigned
- Work with the AM (P&P, T&S and whatever is needed)
- AM sends report
(wait2)
- FD checks the application
(wait3)
- DAM reviews the application
(wait4)
- DA
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 02:37:42PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> The FD's responsibility, as a 'New Maintainer Front Desk', is to
> ensure that the new maintainer process runs smoothly, and to take a
> bit of the grunt work off of the DAM. If stuff passes front desk,
> it's assumed that it'll pas
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> FD has mainly two people: Wouter and me. Christoph Berg helps out
> sometimes, but has more than enough to do with DAM work. There is no
> other FD - they either stepped down or disappeared completely from
> Debian.
> Would be great to know where F
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 03:30:13PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> But as things stand nowadays, I wouldn't be happy with that outcome,
>> given that DAM is more understaffed than FD (2 people vs 4), with
>> Joerg also involved in another time-consuming role (ftpmaster)
On 24/06/09 at 14:41 +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote:
> Lucas, for what I understand, you have been reading (or at least receiving)
> the FD email for some months now [1], from even before Bern were promoted
> to FD. The goal was helping with some FD tasks without being FD. What
> were those tasks? S
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 03:39:10PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 23/06/09 at 15:30 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:55:42PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > Hence I would more welcome one of the following alternative outcomes:
> >
> > 1) drop FD *and* integrate
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 03:30:13PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> But as things stand nowadays, I wouldn't be happy with that outcome,
> given that DAM is more understaffed than FD (2 people vs 4), with
> Joerg also involved in another time-consuming role (ftpmaster).
Actually, that's not enti
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:43:55PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> If the FD doesn't have the power to decide whether to accept somebody or not,
> what is the point of it reviewing candidacies, specially if later the DAM
> will review it anyway?
The FD's responsibility, as a 'New Maintainer
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 03:30:13PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Hence I would more welcome one of the following alternative outcomes:
>
> 1) drop FD *and* integrate the current FD people into DAM; it looks
>like accepting new members is the main part of DAM activities
>anyhow, so why
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort dijo [Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:43:55PM +0200]:
> >> I'd be perfectly fine with FD being the last review step, and DAM
> >> "just" in charge of creating the account, trusting FD judgement.
> >>
> >> What would we be missing that way?
> >
> > What you miss is that I move all pr
Bernd Zeimetz dijo [Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:54:17PM +0200]:
> > If there are too many emails, maybe you should reduce the number of
> > emails by reducing the number of questions asked?
>
> No.
> The number of emails rises only if candidates don't answer in a useful way and
> the AM needs to ask b
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 23/06/09 at 15:30 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:55:42PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
OK, then what I'm proposing is to identify one single entity where the
decision is taken. Either is FD or is DAM.
>>> It's DAM. DAM has always
On 23/06/09 at 15:30 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:55:42PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > > OK, then what I'm proposing is to identify one single entity where the
> > > decision is taken. Either is FD or is DAM.
> > It's DAM. DAM has always been the position that
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:55:42PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > OK, then what I'm proposing is to identify one single entity where the
> > decision is taken. Either is FD or is DAM.
> It's DAM. DAM has always been the position that decides who is a DD and
> who isn't. The whole FD/NM thing i
Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:29:20PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>>> What you miss is that I move all problematic candidates to DAM with
>>> the comment "I'm not entirely happy, but its your job to decide..."
>> OK, then wh
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> From an NM point of view, my feeling is:
>
> "I hope the Keyring Maintainers and the DSA don't feel like reviewing
> everything
> *again* to add my key to the keyring and to give me access to the developer
> machines"
Speaking with my DSA hat
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:29:20PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > What you miss is that I move all problematic candidates to DAM with
> > the comment "I'm not entirely happy, but its your job to decide..."
>
> OK, then what I'm proposing is to ide
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 23/06/09 at 14:29 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>>> I'd be perfectly fine with FD being the last review step, and DAM
>>> "just" in charge of creating the account, trusting FD judgement.
>>>
>>> What would we be missing that way?
>> What you mis
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:29:20PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> What you miss is that I move all problematic candidates to DAM with
> the comment "I'm not entirely happy, but its your job to decide..."
OK, then what I'm proposing is to identify one single entity where the
decision is taken. Eithe
Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> I'd be perfectly fine with FD being the last review step, and DAM
>> "just" in charge of creating the account, trusting FD judgement.
>>
>> What would we be missing that way?
>
> What you miss is that I move all problematic candidates to DAM with
On 23/06/09 at 14:29 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > I'd be perfectly fine with FD being the last review step, and DAM
> > "just" in charge of creating the account, trusting FD judgement.
> >
> > What would we be missing that way?
>
> What you miss is that I move all p
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> I'd be perfectly fine with FD being the last review step, and DAM
> "just" in charge of creating the account, trusting FD judgement.
>
> What would we be missing that way?
What you miss is that I move all problematic candidates to DAM with the comment
"I'm not entirely
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:30:53AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Some of them have been FD-approved a very, very long time ago:
> Alexander Gerasiov has been FD-approved on 2009-01-10, and Asheesh
> Loria on 2008-12-22 (but apparently, because of an unanswered RC
> bug, DAM postponed approving him
26 matches
Mail list logo
