On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 12:36:43PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > Hi, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > > 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". > > The "look at" step seems to be treated as "thorough check that the AM > makes a sound recommendation", not just "look at the AM report". > > Personally I agree that a second look at the report is a Good Thing, > but ... see other messages.
By my reading of step 5, reviewing the AM report for soundness is the job of the NM committee (comprised of Front Desk, AMs, and DAMs). So, it may fall to the DAM, in the end, to review AM reports for soundness, but that's not their job specifically. Yes, followup checks are important. As someone (sorry, brain's on the fritz, can't name names) mentioned upthread, people on the NM ctte could review the report, and on 3 "yes" votes (and no "no" votes) the report is approved and away it goes to DAM and account creation. Sounds like a winner to me. It (a) relieves possibly excessive load on the DAM, (b) removes any personal bias which may be present (some people apparently aren't overly enamoured of James Troup's style), and (c) could make the process far more transparent - "you have 2 AM 'yes' votes". The only stall could be if nobody looks at pending applications, but I think there are enough AMs to handle that. The converse - shoddy AMs OKing other shoddy AMs work - should be handled by removing the shoddy AMs from the system (IMHO). (Speaking entirely as someone with no real say in the matter whatsoever). - Matt
