On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 02:17:09PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > But in Eray's case, the reasons ARE obvious to outside observers;
You mean to people who participate in certain fora. What I meant was that _ideally_ these reasons should be stated plainly and there should be no need to go fishing for them in mailing list archives or elsewhere. > nm.debian.org also clearly states what is being required of him > before he can become a developer. Yes, it states the requirement, but it doesn't mention the reason for that requirement (e.g. "bad team-work skills"). > DAM approval is not necessarily a rubber stamp; in the end, the DAM > is personally responsible for creating Debian accounts, and I'm glad > that he DOES review the applications to make an independent decision Sure, noone is stating the contrary. That's one of his tasks: make sure that everything adds up. > > The way I read that is that the DAM doesn't think it's appropiate > > to approve the application, but doesn't have any particular reason > > to reject it and has asked five developers to pitch in and say > > "yes, I think it should be approved". That's fine for two months. > > But two years? > I think being unable to work together with other developers well > enough to get the backing of even five out of a THOUSAND is itself a > substantial reason not to approve an application. Sure. Either Eray hasn't actively asked for this support or he's found none. Either way, move forward. From my POV having a person sit in there for two years is a bad precedent. This says the process is not bounded in any practical way. > Have you told the DAM that YOU think he should be a DD? If not, why > not? No, I haven't because I don't think he should be a developer. What's your point? > Although I suspect it was done entirely for selfish reasons ;) I don't quite follow you, care to explain? > You might disagree with the DAM's reasoning for holding up the > application (I certainly don't), but I don't see why you would object > to the comment on the NM page. I don't disagree with the reasoning because I don't know the reasoning in the first place. What you seem to think the reasoning is, is only your own best guess, isn't it? > Or were you suggesting that Eray's application should simply be > rejected, and the file closed? Yes, that's what I'm saying. "Should you want to apply again, please do so in a year. Thank you." -- Marcelo
