On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:09:15PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:16:12PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > >And neither does the fact that some have been there for years > > >indicate anything in particular. > > > > Here is where you're entirely and totally wrong. It indicates a > > breakdown in the communication process. > > Communication with whom? I don't think that anyone besides the > applicant himself needs to be informed.
Based on the e-mails from many of these applicants (private and to the list), the applicants are *not* being informed at all. As for whether the applicant is the only one that should be informed, I disagree. If there's a problem with the application it should be clearly noted on the application status. > > If these people are being delayed for a reason, the reason needs to > > be written down publically in the appropriate place. > > I disagree; if the applicant knows why they are being delayed, then > the fact that this information is not published on the website does > not indicate that the process is broken. That's a pretty big *if*, and as I've indicated above the applicants don't seem to be informed or contacted. -- Jamin W. Collins This is the typical unix way of doing things: you string together lots of very specific tools to accomplish larger tasks. -- Vineet Kumar
