> That reminds me of a point that I wanted to bring up previously > but didn't. In previous messages on the topic of DAM-level > rejections, I've gotten the distinct impression that James > considers himself the final "gatekeeper" of who gets into Debian. > For instance, the process specified in > http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2003/10/msg00001.html > includes the words "not going to become developers (on my watch), > period." (in regard to ultimate rejections at the DAM stage).
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with this. > As per James' delegated power from the DPL, he apparently has the > right to take this stance. So we have to talk to Martin on two > fronts -- as a senior member of the NM process (in the role of > Front Desk) and the delegator of the authority of the DAM. > Obviously James needs to have a say in this whole thing as well if > we're to get anywhere without pissing him off mightily. Sounds like it would be good for Martin or James to chime in before we get too much further then. > > Also, the information on the NM site mentions that Joey Hess serves as > > Martin "Joey" Schulze acts as backup according to > http://www.debian.org/devel/join/newmaint (down the bottom). Oops... sorry... I got the wrong Joey. Thanks for the correction. > > backup DAM. What does this actually mean? Do they both have the > > authority to do this, or is one only supposed to step in when > > specifically asked? > > I recall reading that the backup DAM has specifically stated that he will > *only* step in to do the DAM job (heh) if James is incapable of performing > the job -- he will not be used to route around percieved problems in the way > James does the job. I don't think is a bad idea under the circumstances. Makes sense, thanks. -- Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.ql.org/q/
