Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Moritz Muehlenhoff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051111 23:40]: >> Endless sponsoring is a waste of time, both for the DD-to-be, who has >> additional >> work like preparing his new package for download, sending explanations along >> etc. >> and the sponsor, who needs to review the upload again. > > I think it's true that we need to get faster. I just don't have *the* > good idea how. Of course, ranting is not helpful (which you didn't, but > others did) - but I don't have a good idea what is (except of getting > more people to become AM, what we try, but is only limited successfull).
It's not purely a problem with the number of AM's. The bottlenecks I see are: 1. Some applicants are slow to respond, or give poor answers, so they hog their assigned AM. 2. AM's get busy and are slow to respond to applicants. Personally, I frequently do AM work in short spurts, and then get too busy to do any work for a month or so. 3. AM's are not available to have applicants assigned, either because of (1) or (2), so applicants have to wait in the queue. 4. Then there's the infamous DAM bottleneck... We can't force applicants to respond faster, but I think the other bottlenecks are fixable. The common problem seems to be that one single person per task (AM, FD, DAM) is not reliable enough, since the amount of time any one developer can devote to NM fluctuates quite a bit. A possible solution I see is, instead of assigning one AM per applicant, all AM's are made a part of a committee to handle applicants. Then the front desk sends the question templates to the applicant, and the applicant directs their respond to the committee. The committee can coordinate among themselves who will process which set of answers (or section of answers). This gives greater flexibility for distributing the work--for example, if an AM only wanted to focus on the licensing questions, he or she could just process those answers for each applicant. This would help alleviate (2), since other AM's could step in when needed. And, (3) would no longer be an issue. If the DAM were to participate, or at least monitor, the progress of each applicant handled by the committee, it would hopefully make his decision easier. Or, since several developer eyeballs would already have viewed the responses of the applicant, the need for the DAM to be the final decision maker would be lessened. The decision of acceptance could be reduced to a vote by AM's--say 5 AM's "approve" an applicant, then that applicant is accepted. -- Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
