On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 05:38:17PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: > Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > 1.2.7 Knowledge-area assessment > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Determine a set of "required knowledge" modules, and ensure that the > > applicant has been assessed satisfactorily on all of them. This assists in > > assessing different sorts of applicants -- you can customise the "required > > modules" for a documentation person as opposed to a package maintainer, > > without needing to totally gut the whole system. > > That's something which AMs can decide (and I do not discourage such a > decision).
The reason why I haven't used it in the past is due to a percieved lack of approval of the methodology from FD/DAM -- I really don't want to use a different method of assessment only to have FD come back and say "we don't think you've assessed the applicant sufficiently; go back and do it again" -- it would suck for me, but it would *really* suck for the applicant. If I were to assess an applicant in the manner I described above, I would almost certainly structure the report differently, and would most likely not have separate P&P/T&S stages (which would mangle the report, *and* make it impractical to properly use the AM/applicant page on nm.d.o). I'd possibly be willing to take on a new applicant and assess them under this scheme, if there's a reasonable expectation that my applicant wouldn't be unduly disadvantaged by the use of a very different assessment scheme. - Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
