On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 11:01:12PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The DAM's role should not be a decision-making one. We as a project > should put processes in place to make decisions regarding applicants > with a documented, open process. The DAM's role should be limited to > administering accounts - which would require much less in terms of time > commitment and presumably would then be less likely to become > backlogged.
According to http://www.debian.org/devel/join/nm-step5, that is the DAM's job description already - with the additional work that the DAM is part of the NM Committee - whose actions (from my POV) are poorly defined. As far as I can tell, the NM Committee should simply be a check to ensure the AM hasn't totally fluffed it. The DAM, when the "Check In" stage of the process is reached, should (AFAICT) simply look at the available info, and if there's something missing, say "ahem, I need <foo> to make this account". Apart from the phrase "When the Developer Accounts Managers are satisfied with the complete application...", which I would interpret as being "satisfied that they have everything they need to create the account", there's nothing there that says that the DAM (in their capacity purely as the DAM) has any special power to reject or otherwise screw with the progress of an applicant. Now, obviously, they do, because that appears to be the primary complaint people have with NM (whether that's entirely justified of not I don't want to get into), so where does the DAM's power for this come from? Curious, Matt
